Hate Speech

How a six-year constitutional conversation — spanning ‘Corona Jihad’, ‘UPSC Jihad’, Dharam Sansads, contempt petitions, and preventive policing — culminated in the Supreme Court reserving orders and closing most hate-speech cases

Influencers openly called for killing Muslims and reducing their population as the state watched—and waited

From the “love jihad” conspiracy to public humiliation of Muslim women, the complaint details how hate speech was used to inflame religious divisions during the BMC election period

1,318 verified in-person events in 2025, with BJP-ruled states accounting for 88% documents the India Hate Labs Report 2025

Complaint details how “vote jihad” and “land jihad” narratives used during the Model Code of Conduct period violate electoral law, constitutional guarantees, and democratic norms

A detailed complaint documents how repeated hate speeches targeting Muslims threaten public order, minority safety, and the constitutional promise of fraternity

Congress leader Kapil Sibal also highlighted that Adhikari’s comments had led to “no FIR, no arrest, no prosecution, no UAPA”.

The organisation documents a 10-day trail of exclusionary, fearmongering and openly inflammatory statements across four states, urging urgent intervention to prevent further communal polarisation

Justice Sumeet Goel cites prima facie digital evidence, seriousness of hate-motivated speech, and the need for custodial interrogation

As the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra traversed 422 village panchayats across three states, it carried not merely religious symbolism but explicit political messaging. Calls for a Hindu Rashtra, vilification of Muslim communities, and assertions of majoritarian dominance raise serious questions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s provisions on promoting enmity, inciting violence, and disturbing public tranquillity. Yet, as the aftermath shows, ranging from protests in Datia to a clash in Vrindavan, the legal system’s response has been fragmented and cautious. This report interrogates that legal vacuum, situating the padyatra within established precedents of hate-speech jurisprudence and the enduring gap between statutory safeguards and ground-level enforcement.