The Karnataka Legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory regime to criminalise hate speech and hate crimes, prescribing stringent imprisonment terms, preventive policing powers, content-blocking authority, and victim compensation under The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Act, 2025.

Law Information

• Title: The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Act, 2025
• Legislative Body: Karnataka Legislative Assembly
• Assembly: Sixteenth Legislative Assembly
• Session: Eighth Session
• Bill Number: LA Bill No. 79 of 2025
• Date of Passage: 09 December 2025
• Minister in Charge: Dr. G. Parameshwara, Minister for Home

Legislative Background and Purpose

The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Act, 2025 was enacted to address what the legislature described as the growing dissemination, publication, and promotion of hate speech and hate crimes that cause disharmony, hatred, and ill-will in society.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons makes it clear that the law is intended to protect individuals, groups of persons, and organisations from targeted hostility, while also ensuring punishment for offenders and compensation for victims who suffer injury due to such crimes.

The Act is designed to operate as a special legislation supplementing existing criminal laws, rather than replacing them.

It seeks to strengthen the State’s capacity to prevent hate-driven offences at an early stage, punish repeat offenders more severely, and empower authorities to act against hate material, particularly in electronic and digital spaces.

Short Title and Commencement

The statute is formally titled the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Act, 2025.

Its enforcement is contingent upon a notification to be issued by the State Government in the Official Gazette, thereby allowing the executive to determine the date from which the law becomes operational.

Definition of Hate Speech

A key feature of the Act is its expansive definition of “hate speech.” The law defines hate speech as any expression made, published, or circulated, whether spoken, written, by signs, visible representations, electronic communication, or otherwise, in public view, with the intention to cause injury, disharmony, or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will.

The definition expressly covers speech directed against a person, whether alive or dead, or against a class, group of persons, or community, where such expression relates to a prejudicial interest.

The breadth of this definition brings within its scope not only traditional forms of speech but also online and digital expressions that may inflame social tensions or target protected identities.

Prejudicial Interest and Protected Grounds

The Act defines “prejudicial interest” to include bias based on an extensive list of identity markers.

These include religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability, and tribe. By explicitly enumerating these grounds, the legislation seeks to cover a wide spectrum of identity-based hostility and discrimination.

This provision underscores the legislature’s intent to recognise the diverse bases on which hate speech and hate crimes may be perpetrated in a plural society, and to afford statutory protection across multiple vulnerable categories.

Meaning of Hate Crime and Communication

“Hate crime” under the Act is defined as the communication of hate speech, including acts of making, publishing, circulating, promoting, propagating, inciting, abetting, or attempting such hate speech, with the intention of causing disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will against any person, group of persons, or organisation.

The statute also defines “communication” in broad terms to include expressions conveyed in public view through verbal, print, publication, electronic means, or any other medium.

This ensures that liability under the Act is not confined to the original speaker but can extend to those who amplify or facilitate the spread of hateful content.

Punishment and Enhanced Sentencing for Repeat Offences

The Act prescribes rigorous punishment for hate crimes. A first-time offender faces imprisonment for a term not less than one year, which may extend up to seven years, along with a fine of ₹50,000.

For subsequent or repetitive offences, the minimum sentence is enhanced to two years’ imprisonment, which may extend up to ten years, along with a fine of ₹1,00,000.

The statutory escalation of punishment reflects the legislature’s intent to treat repeat hate-based offences as particularly grave, warranting stronger deterrence.

Victim Compensation

In addition to criminal punishment, the Act empowers courts to award adequate compensation to victims.

The compensation is to be calculated based on the injury caused due to the hate crime, taking into account the gravity of the impact of the offence. This provision places victim rehabilitation and restorative justice alongside penal consequences.

Nature of Offences and Jurisdiction

Offences under the Act are declared to be cognizable and non-bailable, and are triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

By making the offences non-bailable, the legislature has signalled its view that hate crimes pose a serious threat to public order and social harmony, justifying stricter procedural treatment.

Statutory Exceptions and Safeguards

The Act carves out an explicit exception for certain forms of expression. Its penal provisions do not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, or electronic material whose publication is proved to be justified as being for the public good.

This includes works in the interest of science, literature, art, learning, or other objects of general concern, as well as material kept or used for bona fide heritage or religious purposes.

This safeguard is intended to balance the law’s objectives with legitimate freedom of expression and cultural or academic pursuits.

Preventive Powers of Authorities

The Act grants significant preventive powers to the law and order machinery.

An Executive Magistrate, Special Executive Magistrate, or a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police may take preventive action upon receiving information and forming a belief that a person or group is likely to commit, or has threatened to commit, an offence under the Act.

Such action is aimed at maintaining public order, peace, and tranquillity.

The preventive mechanism operates in conjunction with Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs preventive proceedings.

Liability of Organisations and Institutions

Where a hate crime is committed by an organisation or institution, the Act provides that every person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence, as well as the organisation itself, shall be deemed guilty.

However, individuals may escape liability if they prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge or despite due diligence to prevent it.

The term “organisation or institution” is defined to include associations of persons, whether registered or unregistered, thereby widening the net of accountability.

Power to Block or Remove Hate Material

The Act authorises a designated officer, notified by the State Government, to direct service providers, intermediaries, or any person or entity to block or remove hate crime material from their domain, including electronic media.

This provision gives statutory backing to swift executive action against online hate content.

Relationship with Other Laws and Protection of Officials

The Act clarifies that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws in force, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

It also provides protection to public servants for actions taken in good faith under the Act.

Rule-Making Power and Financial Implications

The State Government is empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, subject to legislative oversight.

The Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill states that no additional expenditure is involved in implementing the legislation.

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…