Punjab and Haryana High Court says caste-based hate speech hurts people, damages nation, refuses lawyer relief

It further said, “In a nation founded upon the ideals of equality, fraternity and respect for human dignity, caste-based hate speech not only wounds individual dignity but also imperils social harmony and the collective conscience of the country.”

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said such language directly harms the dignity of people who belong to or identify with that group. (Image enhance using AI)

Background

The case arose from a public speech uploaded on a social media platform, delivered by the petitioner during a gathering held in front of the Hisar mini-secretariat in July.

The meeting was organised in connection with the murder and rape of a woman on November 16, 2024, in Haryana in which the accused were also present.

During the speech, the petitioner allegedly used repeated references to “caste” and described certain people as “casteist gundas” (casteist goons), while also making allegations of bribery against police officers.

The complainant, who is the son of a woman who was raped and murdered, filed a complaint against the lawyer alleging hate speech.

Following this, the advocate was booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for offences related to promoting enmity between different groups, intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace, spreading false statements or information (including online), causing public mischief, defamation, abetment, and attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment

The complainant alleged that the speech was defamatory, incited caste-based hatred, interfered with the administration of justice and had the potential to disturb public peace.

The advocate approached the high court seeking the quashing of the FIR.

Arguments

Advocates Arjun Sheoran and Tejasvi Sheokand, appearing for the petitioner, argued that he was acting in his professional capacity as a lawyer representing one of the accused in the murder case and was only exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The counsel claimed that the FIR was a retaliatory move due to his professional engagement and that his speech did not amount to hate speech or incitement to violence.

They also relied on various Supreme Court judgments to argue that free speech should not be criminalised unless it clearly incites violence or public disorder.

Observations

The high court outlined that unchecked caste-based speech can threaten social harmony and ultimately curtail the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, reaffirming the constitutional balance between free expression and collective dignity.

It said that use of phrases like “casteist gundas” not only criticise the actions of specific individuals but also suggests criminal behaviour, moral corruption, and shared blame for an entire caste or social group.

“When such expressions are publicly articulated and normalised, particularly in charged or emotive settings, they carry the real and imminent risk of legitimising prejudice, inciting hostility and disturbing public tranquillity,” the courts said.

Stating that divisive speech ultimately curtails the liberties of law-abiding citizens, Justice Bhardwaj said, “Freedom of speech cannot be stretched to shield expressions that promote or are likely to promote alienation, public disorder or violence or that challenge the unity and integrity of the nation.”

The court said that while every citizen has the right to speak freely and express their views, this right is not unlimited.

The Constitution allows the government to place reasonable limits on free speech when necessary to protect public order, decency, morality, and the unity and security of the country, it added.

These restrictions seek to balance individual liberties with the larger societal interest in maintaining harmony, tranquillity, and the rule of law, it said.

The bench said that the fact that the petitioner began his speech by saying he would be accused of targeting a caste shows that he was fully aware of the nature and tone of his speech.

It also shows that he understood the possibility that the audience and the content of his remarks were meant to promote certain divisive strategies or allegations, it said.

“The repeated invocation of the expression “casteist or जाती वादी/Jaati Vadi” is not merely casual, accidental or incidental. I am afraid that the reiteration of the aspect ‘Jati Vaadi’, invariably, is reaffirming his indication towards a specific caste group,” said Justice Bhardwaj.

The court said the petitioner, being a trained advocate, is assumed to be fully aware of the import and societal implication of the expression that he chooses while addressing the public.

It added that “persistent and deliberate” reference to “caste” and “casteist goons” in the speech cannot be brushed aside as inadvertent or incidental.

“It rather shows that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to use such an expression so as to incite people, which had the potential to create a public disorder and pose imminent danger to public tranquillity,” the bench said.

Rejecting arguments of the petitioner, the court asserted that freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, especially in the interest of public order and social harmony.

Taking note of the fact that the speech was addressed to a public crowd that had assembled in connection with and probably in response to a call for support against caste atrocity, the court said in such a setting, “emotive and caste-laden expressions” possess a far greater potential to “inflame passions, polarise the audience and disturb public tranquillity”.

The court said that the petitioner went beyond his role as an advocate by addressing a public gathering, making allegations of false implication, and uploading the speech online.

“As an Advocate, his job is to defend his client in a Court of Law and not on a public platform by arranging public protests,” the court said.

By speaking to a gathering and raising allegations in public, the petitioner moved beyond professional legal work into public mobilisation which shows his strong personal involvement in the incident, making him an interested participant who sought to influence public opinion about both the prosecution and the final outcome of the case, it added.

Hence, the petitioner cannot be treated as a neutral and independent professional acting strictly within the limits of courtroom duties, said the court.