Legal Accountability for Social Media Platforms in Hate Speech Cases

Introduction-

The Hate speech on social media platform is very common ex- Notable incident like Sharmistha ponoli controversial post, Rana Ayub online harassment etc. which raised social media companies can be held legally accountable. What are hate speech? How people who are making hate speech are legal Accountable by also telling legal framework of India ex- IPC ,BNS ,IT act 2000 and Intermedairy Guidelines and digital Media Ethics code rule 2021.

What is hate speech?

Hate speech refers to when an offensive statement is made to target an group or an individual where a particular community get offend and end with roits ex – religion, race , cast, sex, gender etc

Illustration

‘A’ is the leader of a particular community name B , A suggests B community that C, are group member behind the conspiracy gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization

What is hate speech on social media?

When an offensive speech is made on social media towards a particular community in social media like Instagram , Facebook , twitter etc by using abusive Languages towards specific communities , spreading false information , making memes and videos on a particular communities that mock them , call for violence against certain population.

Case law-

• Sharmistha Panoli case 2025 – A law student and social media influencer posted a video on Instagram which hurted religious sentiments and she was arrested by Kolkata police.

• Mangaluru social media case 2025- police in Mangaluru registered a case against a group of people who were posting provocative content on social media.

So here we finished with the introduction.

Now let’s talk about legal framework and case laws

Legal framework in India-

• IPC[INDIAN PENAL CODE]-

In ipc there are some specific sections or laws to address hate speech

sections

1. 153(A) of IPC says that -Promoting between diffirent groups on the ground of religion , race , place of birth , residence , language etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintainance of harmony.

• Punishment under 153(A) of IPC

The purpose of this provision is to punish the person who disturb the peace and harmony of the society and promote enmity amongst the diffirent groups. This provision punish those people.

Punishment upto 3 years or fine or both if act has done in worship place punishment may be extended upto 5 year fine or both

Mens REA is the essential for laible under section 153(A) IPC

Case law-P.K. Chakravarty vs Emperor on 30 July, 1926

P.K Chakravarty was the editor of the forward newspaper . He published a translation of an inflammatory pamphlets in english. The local ordered him to give him 500rs bond under section 108 of CPC. Suspected he promoted hatred between social group.

97IND. CAS.738

2-Section -295(A)-

• Addresses delibrates acts intented to outrage religious feelings

• Punishment- upto 3 years or fine or both

• It is non-bailable offense
  

Case law- Shri dulal Ghosh v State of Tripura – Unintentional insurt to religion but not the violation of section 295(A)The appellant filed a case before the court seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him by the respondent for a comment posted by him on social media. The comment is said to have allegedly hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community by insulting the Bhagavad Gita.

3-Section 505-

Related to statements conducting to public mischief

• This section lays down legal consequences for individuals who make or distribute statements with intent to:

1. Cause military personnel to mutiny or neglect their duties.

2. Incite public fear or alarm, potentially leading to offenses against the State or public peace.

3. Encourage one community to commit offenses against another.

• Violators may be punished with three years of imprisonment, fines, or both

Information technology (IT)act 2000

Section 66(A)-Sending offensive messages electronically

It was stucked down in 2015

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

1. Sending any offensive or menacing information via computer or communication device is a punishable act.

2. Sharing known false information to cause annoyance, danger, or injury is also punishable.

3. Sending any kind of deceptive electronic mail messages to mislead recipients is prohibited.

4. Offenders may be punished with imprisonment of up to three years and/or fines.

5. “Electronic mail” will include any kind of message or information sent via electronic means, including text, images, and multimedia attachments.

Case law- Shreya Singhal v Union of India,

In the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The given section criminalized sending offensive messages online. The Supreme Court declared that this section is unconstitutional, stating that it has a violative nature against Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The reason behind the decision was found to be its vague and open-ended terms that led to arbitrary enforcement and potential misuse against free speech. The ruling clearly emphasized the need for defined restrictions which are clear and easy to understand to protect individual rights in the digital space, marking a significant affirmation of freedom of expression in India.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) rule 2021

The IT Rules, 2021, aim to regulate intermediaries and digital media publishers, focusing on due diligence, grievance redressal, and a code of ethics. These rules were notified in February 2021 and were applied to intermediaries. These included social media platforms and online news publishers as well. They mandate that intermediaries clearly communicate their rules and regulations, privacy policies, and user agreements, while also prohibiting certain content from being hosted or shared.

Conclusion-

You can't be punished just for what you publish, it matters why you published it. Chakravarty was cleared from all the accusations due to lack of evidence that he wanted to promote hatred.

With this the given case turned as a cornerstone in balancing legal responsibility and freedom of expression and works as a lesson that's still relevant in today's fight against hate speech, especially on social media.

1. https://www.techpolicy.press/indias-courts-must-hold-social-media-platforms-accountable-for-hate-speech/#:~:text=Rule%203%20of%20IT%20(Intermediary,or%20hateful%2C%20amongst%20other%20categories.

2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158543/

3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1198526/

4. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=164

5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141276737/

6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170483278/

7. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/02/Information-Technology-Intermediary-Guidelines-and-Digital-Media-Ethics-Code-Rules-2021-updated-06.04.2023-.pdf

AUTHOR:

SURYANSH SHUKLA

BBA LLB 3 SEMESTER

BHARTIYA VIDHYAPEETH NEW LAW COLLEGE PUNE