Hate Speech Bill referred to Select Committee

Hyderabad: The Assembly on Monday referred the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill to a Select Committee following objections from opposition parties and suggestions from ruling party members. The House also authorised the Speaker to select any number of members for the formation of the committee.

The Bill, introduced by BC Welfare Minister Ponnam Prabhakar on behalf of Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, drew comments from 14 members before the referral. Speaking on the legislation, the Minister stated that the prevailing atmosphere in society was being vitiated by speeches that incite animosity. He emphasised that the Bill was introduced in strict conformity with the Constitution and poses no threat to freedom of speech.

Highlighting Article 19, he noted that it allows for ‘reasonable restrictions’ and clarified that the legislation does not authorise any violation of human rights. He assured members that the Bill carries no vindictive intent and is not designed to favour or oppose any specific community, nor does it threaten any individual.

Responding to an allegation that the Bill mirrored Karnataka’s legislation, the Minister acknowledged it and stated that the Congress government was open to adopting beneficial practices from any source. Acting on the advice of members, he recommended that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, which the Speaker subsequently did.

Earlier, BJLP leader A Maheshwar Reddy opposed the Bill, calling for either a Select Committee referral or the formation of a House Committee for review. He described the Bill as a violation of human rights and democracy under the guise of maintaining law and order.

He termed Section 4 of the Bill a “death warrant” for freedom of speech, warning that ordinary citizens posting complaints on social media about administrative inefficiency or government shortcomings could face immediate arrest. He also cited former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, saying remarks about them could be deemed hate speech. He further cautioned that even critical articles about the Nizam’s rule could lead to non-bailable cases based on complaints from individuals connected to the Nizam.

CPI MLA K Sambasiva Rao criticised the Bill for being anti-democratic and demanded its immediate withdrawal, arguing it lacks clarity and threatens freedom of speech.