Why politicians get away with hate speech

New Delhi, Jan 30: A serious of provocative speeches by BJP MP's during campaigning in Delhi Assembly elections has brought the issue of "hate speech" in focus.

While Thakur had urged the crowd to raise an incendiary slogan "shoot the traitors" after he lashed out at anti-CAA protesters. The same slogan has also been raised by other BJP members, including Kapil Mishra

Another leader, Verma called Shaheen Bagh protesters "rapists and murderers" and followed it up by calling Delhi's chief minister a "terrorist". Last week, a BJP candidate had called Shaheen Bagh "a mini-Pakistan" prompting the EC to ban him from campaigning for two days.

The poll body, which monitors the campaign ordered the removal of BJP MPs Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma from the list of star campaigners for Delhi polls and a 72-hours campaign ban on the leaders, many times the politicians let go off. Interestingly, a ban on leaders would not make any difference for the party, which a long list of leaders campaigning for the party.

But could the Election Commission have done something more than a mere slap on the wrist? Lets us have a look.

What is hate speech?

According to the UN human rights body, hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair colour, etc), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

Laws prohibiting hate speech

India prohibits hate speech by several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by other laws which put limitations on the freedom of expression.

What are the powers of the Election Commission in this regard?

Experts say that commission's powers with respect to the Model Code of Conduct is limited as the code doesn't have a specific statutory basis and is limited to a persuasive effect with rules laid out for electoral morality. It cannot de-recognise or disqualify the candidate.

Dichotomy within judiciary

In 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking its direction to restrain politicians from indulging in "provocative and hate speeches" saying that it cannot curtail people's fundamental right to free speech.

"We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution," a bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said, adding "we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide."

The court said that it is a matter of perception and a statement objectionable to a person might not be normal to other people. "We are 128 million people and there would be 128 million views. One is free not accepting the view of others," the bench said.

While politicians indulge in hate speech for securing political mileage in their favour and the poll body merely has the power to ban them from campaigning. Where does the responsibility go?