The Karnataka government has opposed the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) against RSS leader Prabhakar Bhat, who is accused of delivering a speech in Puttur that allegedly promoted enmity between communities. The speech, delivered at a college event and later circulated on YouTube, led to the registration of an FIR under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, including those related to promoting enmity, deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings, and public mischief. The matter is currently before the Karnataka High Court, which has issued an interim order not to take coercive steps against the petitioner until further hearing.
According to Live Law, the Karnataka government argued before the High Court that the speech in question was designed to create hatred between communities, particularly among youngsters, and that such acts threaten peace and harmony in society. The government’s counsel stated that repeated quashing of similar cases in the past had emboldened the accused to continue making such speeches, and that the content of the speech clearly incited and instigated hatred.
As reported by Live Law, the High Court has stayed further investigation in the FIR, citing the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of guidelines that regulate the registration of FIRs in cases arising from social media posts. The guidelines require prima facie evidence of incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder before an FIR can be registered, and prohibit automatic or mechanical arrests. The court noted that these procedures had not been followed in the present case, leading to the interim stay.
Analysis showed that India’s legal framework for hate speech is fragmented, with relevant provisions scattered across various laws and regulations. The lack of coherence has resulted in selective enforcement and prolonged litigation, often leaving hate speech inadequately addressed. The Supreme Court has acknowledged these limitations and called for clearer, more consistent rules to balance free speech with the need to protect dignity and social harmony.
“The way in which he has delivered speech which clearly shows he is trying to create hatred in between different communities... He is completely destroying peace and harmony of the society. Because of this kind of speeches youngsters may cultivate a habit, may cultivate spirit of hatred against another community which should not be permissible,” the Karnataka government’s counsel told the High Court.
In the context of rising hate speech incidents, recent coverage revealed that the Karnataka government has approved the deployment of an artificial intelligence-powered monitoring system to track hate speech, fake news, and misinformation across digital and social media platforms. The system, which will not apply to mainstream news outlets, is intended to provide real-time alerts and support administrative action under existing laws, with the possibility of dedicated legislation in the future.
At the national level, reporting indicated that other states, such as Telangana, are also considering new legislation to address hate speech, reflecting a broader trend of legal and policy responses to the issue across India.
“The solution lies in moving away from a single-track criminal model towards a graduated response framework. Not all harmful speech requires prosecution. First-time or low-intensity instances can often be addressed through administrative measures: Formal warnings, counselling, or mandatory sensitivity training — especially for public officials,” a legal analysis noted.
In the ongoing case, the Karnataka government has maintained that the accused’s repeated involvement in similar cases and alleged violations of bail conditions justify the continuation of the investigation. The High Court is expected to issue further orders after considering the arguments from both sides, with the next hearing scheduled soon as details emerged.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.