Hate Speech - Free MCQ Practice Test with solutions, UPSC Indian Polity

Statement-I incorrectly mentions Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as empowering the mentioned magistrates to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or danger. However, Section 144 actually empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government to issue orders in urgent cases involving the likelihood of a breach of the peace or public tranquility. On the other hand, Statement-II accurately describes non-regulatory options available to Election Management Bodies, emphasizing stakeholder outreach, collaboration, and various strategies to combat hate speech. Hence, Statement-I is incorrect, while Statement-II is correct.

1. Section 7 of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: This section indeed penalizes the incitement to untouchability through various means, including spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations. This statement is correct.

2. Section 3(g) of The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988: This section prohibits the use of religious premises for promoting disharmony, enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, or regional groups, or castes or communities. This statement is correct.

3. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. This statement is correct.

Thus, all the statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct. Therefore, the correct answer is Option D.

1. Statement 1 is correct. The Viswanathan Committee 2019 indeed proposed the insertion of Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on various grounds, including religion, race, caste, or community. This was part of a broader effort to address issues related to hate speech and incitement.

2. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Bezbaruah Committee 2014 proposed amending Section 153 C of the IPC, which deals with promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity. However, the punishment for this proposed amendment was five years and fine or both, not three years.

3. Statement 3 is correct. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court differentiated between discussion, advocacy, and incitement, holding that discussion and advocacy are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right of free speech and expression.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option C: 1 and 3 Only.

1. Section 124A IPC: Penalises sedition

- Correct. Section 124A IPC deals with sedition.

2. Section 153A IPC: Penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings

- Incorrect. Section 153A IPC penalises the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.

3. Section 295A IPC: Penalises promotion of enmity between different groups

- Incorrect. Section 295A IPC penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

4. Section 505 IPC: Penalises publication or circulation of statements causing public mischief

- Correct. Section 505 IPC penalises the publication or circulation of any statement, rumour, or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes.

Only pairs 1 and 4 are correctly matched.

1. Viswanathan Committee 2019: Correctly matched. It proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence.
2. Bezbaruah Committee 2014: Correctly matched. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity).
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: Incorrectly matched. The Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional, differentiating between discussion, advocacy, and incitement.
4. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020): Correctly matched. The Supreme Court stated that hate speech has no valid or redeeming motive other than hostility for a specific group.
Thus, pairs 1, 2, and 4 are correctly matched, but pair 3 is incorrectly matched.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Section 95, grants the State Government the authority to forfeit publications that are punishable under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision allows the government to take action against materials that fall under the specified categories to maintain law and order.

The Bezbaruah Committee in 2014 proposed an amendment to Section 509 A of the IPC, which deals with words, gestures, or acts intended to insult a member of a particular race. This proposed amendment suggested punishment of three years imprisonment or a fine, or both. This particular section aims to address and penalize actions that are intended to insult or provoke individuals based on their race, emphasizing the significance of respecting and upholding the dignity of individuals irrespective of their racial backgrounds.

- Statement 1: Section 153A of the IPC indeed penalises the promotion of enmity between different groups on various grounds including religion, race, place of birth, residence, and language, and the doing of acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. Therefore, statement 1 is correct.

- Statement 2: Section 295A of the IPC penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

- Statement 3: Section 8 of the Representation of The People Act, 1951 disqualifies a person from contesting elections if convicted for indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression, but it does not specifically mention promoting enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language. Instead, Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the same Act address the prohibition of promoting enmity in connection with elections. Therefore, statement 3 is incorrect.

Thus, the correct answer is Option B: 1 and 2 Only.

1. Section 7 of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Correctly matched. It penalises incitement to untouchability through words, signs, or visible representations.
2. Section 3(g) of The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 - Correctly matched. It prohibits the use of religious premises for promoting disharmony among different religious, racial, language, or regional groups.
3. Section 95 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Incorrectly matched. It empowers the State Government to forfeit publications that are punishable under sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293, or 295A IPC, not to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
4. Section 144 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Incorrectly matched. It empowers the District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, not to forfeit publications.
Hence, only pairs 1 and 2 are correctly matched.

Hate speech primarily aims to incite hatred or hostility towards a specific group based on their association with certain characteristics like race, religion, or ethnicity. Such speech can lead to increased tensions, discrimination, and even violence within communities. It is crucial to understand and address the impact of hate speech on society to promote inclusivity and respect for all individuals.