Author: Mansi R. Jadhav, Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur
To the Point
India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), but Article 19(2) permits the state to impose restrictions for public order, decency, morality, and dignity. The challenge today is dealing with hate speech masked as expression especially on TV, social media, and public platforms which deeply affects youth. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that such speech, spread in the name of ratings or influence, damages society and is not covered by free speech protections.
Use of Legal Jargon
Freedom of Expression – Freedom of expression, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, allows individuals to share their thoughts, ideas, and opinions freely.
Reasonable Restrictions – Legal limits on speech (Article 19(2)).
Public Order – Social peace and safety.
Hate Speech – Words inciting hostility or violence against protected groups.
Chilling Effect – Vague laws discourage lawful speech.
Mens rea – Mens rea refers to the mental element or intention behind committing a criminal act—it means the person knowingly did something wrong.
Overbreadth Doctrine – Laws shouldn’t punish legal speech while targeting illegal speech.
The Proof
Media‑Induced Youth Polarisation
In 2024, anti‑minority hate speech incidents in India rose 74%, from 668 to 1,165, most targeting Muslims and Christians a spike linked to the general elections. These incidents often stemmed from speeches and rallies later circulated on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X. The Supreme Court condemned televised hate speech as “poison to the social fabric”, warning that such content is aired for TRP, not public good. Young viewers, exposed to this regularly, start treating intolerance as normal.
Psychological Impact on Youth
Young people exposed to hate speech develop higher levels of anxiety, aggression, and less empathy. The India Hate Lab found 995 hate speech videos circulated widely online, but only 3 were removed, leaving 98.4% available. While direct Indian studies are limited, global research shows repeated exposure to hateful content leads to desensitisation and biased attitudes especially harmful during formative years.
Failure of Digital Moderation
Despite moderation policies, many hate videos stay online. The India Hate Lab found militant content such as cow-vigilante violence posted openly on Instagram and Facebook, but platforms did not act quickly. Automation and understaffing mean most harmful videos are unchecked long enough to influence youth negatively.
Legal Ambiguity and Judicial Response
India currently bans hate speech using Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 295A (insulting religion) of the IPC. However, unclear wording in the law can lead to misuse or no action at all, which may discourage people from speaking freely out of fear. The Supreme Court in 2022 said the government must not be a “mute witness” and must act decisively. In 2023, the Supreme Court strongly condemned hate speech, calling it a serious threat, and directed news anchors to take immediate steps to prevent it during live broadcasts. In May 2025, the Court reaffirmed hate speech is not protected speech and may be restricted.
Supreme Court’s View
The Supreme Court has clearly said that hate speech is not part of the right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court has called hate speech a serious threat to peace and public order, and said that it directly harms the unity of the country. It strongly criticised TV news channels and anchors for allowing hate to spread during live debates just to increase viewership. The Court called such content “poison to the social fabric” and made it clear that anchors have a legal and moral duty to stop hate speech during shows. It also said that existing media regulatory bodies, like the NBSA, are too weak and their punishments are not strong enough to stop this problem. Even though the Court did not directly mention youth, its repeated warnings show that it is deeply concerned about how such content harms young minds and affects their thinking and future.
Consequences on Youth
1. Loss of Social Harmony
Frequent exposure to hate disrupts trust among youth, creating divisions in schools and communities.
2. Mental Health Issues
Victims suffer anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem; bystanders also become desensitised and emotionally numb.
3. Weakening Democratic Values
Hate speech discourages critical engagement, pushing youth toward extremes or apathy.
4. Growth of Extremism
Unchecked hate speech can radicalise young minds or normalise extremist views undermining national security and harmony.
Abstract
This article explores how hate speech amplified by media, politics, and social platforms damages India’s youth. Such speech fuels bias, aggression, division, and long-term psychological harm. While free expression is fundamental (Article 19(1)(a)), the Constitution allows reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)) to preserve public order and dignity. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that hate speech does not fall under the protection of free speech and can be legally restricted. Through verified legal and social evidence, the article argues for stronger, precise regulation to protect both liberty and social harmony.
Case Laws
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as vague, allowing arrests for “offensive” content. It held that only speech inciting violence or public disorder is restrictive. This judgement highlights the importance of precision in laws regulating speech.
2. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014)
The Court said that existing IPC sections are adequate if used properly and asked the Law Commission to review and suggest improvements to prevent misuse.
3. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
Although about criminal defamation (Sections 499–500 IPC), the Court held that freedom of speech must be balanced with the right to dignity under Article 21. These precedent supports limiting speech when it causes harm.
Conclusion
Hate speech is not just offensive it is dangerous. Spread by media and left unchecked online, it damages the minds, hearts, and democratic spirit of India’s youth. It breaks social trust, fuels mental health issues, and steers young people away from open, respectful dialogue. The Supreme Court has made clear: hate speech is not protected speech and can be restricted under the law.
To save the future of our youth and democracy the government, media, platforms, and courts must act together. We need clear laws, responsible media moderation, and judicial oversight. This is how we uphold freedom without letting hate kill harmony.
FAQS
Q1. Is hate speech protected by freedom of expression?
No. The Supreme Court has stated that hate speech is not protected under Article 19(1)(a) and can be limited for public order and safety.
Q2. How does hate speech hurt youth mentally?
It leads to anxiety, depression, trauma, and emotional dullness among victims and desensitisation among bystanders.
Q3. What has the Supreme Court said about media responsibility?
It declared televised hate speech as “poison,” urged anchors to intervene, and called for stronger media regulation than the NBSA provides.
Q4. Why aren’t current laws enough?
Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC are not clearly defined, which often leads to their misuse or lack of proper implementation, creating loopholes in legal action and protection.
Q5. Can we stop hate speech without harming free speech?
Yes. We just need clear, specific laws that punish hateful incitement while protecting honest, non‑violent expression.
