The case of Amish Devgan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered on December 7, 2020, that extensively defined and distinguished between protected free speech and unlawful hate speech in India.
The case originated from a news debate on June 15, 2020, where journalist Amish Devgan referred to the revered Sufi Saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti as an 'attacker' and 'lootera' (robber). This led to multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) being registered against Devgan across the country, primarily invoking Sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) and 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The mechanism of the judgment involved the Supreme Court refusing to quash the FIRs, holding that the determination of whether the speech constituted a criminal offence required a factual inquiry and trial. The Court, however, applied the doctrine against multiplicity of FIRs, directing that all subsequent FIRs be transferred and clubbed with the first FIR filed at Ajmer, Rajasthan. The Court also granted Devgan interim protection from arrest.
The judgment is crucial for its detailed analysis of hate speech jurisprudence, which it connects to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that Section 295A IPC criminalises only aggravated and malicious insults to religion, not merely offensive or careless speech. It established that the assessment of hate speech must cumulatively consider the three determinative elements: content, intent, and harm. The ratio of the judgment is that the determination of whether the speech constituted a criminal offence under Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC required a factual inquiry and trial, while simultaneously providing an extensive analysis to distinguish between protected political discourse and unlawful hate speech. The judgment did not amend any law but provided a significant interpretation of existing provisions.