Guest Post: Criminal Law and Linguistic Majoritarianism

(This is a guest post by Bhushan Raut)

India is home to over 22 constitutionally recognised languages and hundred other dialects. The ability to co-exist in differences is not just a cultural imperative rather a constitutional mandate. The last few months have witnessed a rise in linguistic discrimination especially in the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. Recently a video surfaced where an SBI employee was harassed by a local Kannada speaker for not talking to him in Kannada. Similar incidents have surfaced in Maharashtra where a native Marathi speaker was seen forcing a non-Marathi speaker to talk in Marathi and questioning their legitimacy to inhabit the state without the knowledge of the native language. Multiple incidences on such lines have surfaced over social media. Such linguistic majoritarianism leaves a deep and unsettling scar on the foundational ideas of the Indian Constitution, particularly pluralism, equality, and unity in diversity.

This article examines the intersection of constitutional and criminal law in addressing linguistic discrimination and coercion in India. While the Constitution lays down foundational rights—such as the freedom of speech, expression, movement, and residence—it is the criminal law that enforces these guarantees when they are threatened or violated. In particular, this piece focuses on how the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) penalizes acts of linguistic harassment, intimidation, and the promotion of enmity on the basis of language. Can a State or its people lawfully condition a citizen’s right to reside or work on linguistic conformity? What specific offences under the BNS apply when individuals attempt to enforce such conformity through threats or public hostility? And what remedies exist to protect linguistic freedom and preserve public harmony? These are the key questions this article explores.

Language and Identity in Indian Constitutional Framework

As per the Constitution of India, it does not have any National Language. Although under Article 343 read with the Official Languages Act, 1963 it does provide for Hindi and English as the official languages of the Union. For States, under Article 345 the state legislatures can adopt or use any one or more as official languages of the State for ‘official purposes of the State’ which means it be imposed upon individuals in private or social spheres. This distinction allows us to carve out two spheres for languages. First is the Official or Public-Facing Sphere which includes government offices, public sector undertakings (PSUs) like banks, and other institutions that provide public services. In these contexts, it is reasonable—if not essential—that public-facing employees be conversant in the state’s official language(s) to effectively serve local populations. The obligation here lies with the state to ensure accessibility and communication in the official language for the benefit of its citizens. The second sphere is the Private or Personal Sphere which includes individual daily life, private interactions, and non-governmental spaces where people interact socially or commercially. Here, knowledge of the state’s official language is not obligatory. The Constitution does not—and cannot—mandate linguistic conformity in personal spaces. To do so would violate fundamental rights as we will see in the next section.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

Coming to the rights of the individual citizens, Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of speech and expression to every citizen. It is not confined to any particular language, be it the 22 languages in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution or any official language. The freedom of speech and expression can be restricted by the State under article 19(2) on eight grounds which are security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, defamation, incitement to an offence, public order, decency or morality, contempt of Court and sovereignty and integrity of India.

Moreover, there is a negative right i.e. the right not to be compelled to speak in a particular language. The US Supreme court in West Virgina Board of Education v. Barnette held that compelled speech is just as much a violation of free speech as prevented speech. Similarly, in Bijoe Immanuel v. State of Kerala the Supreme Court of India held that not being forced to sing the national anthem was protected under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, let alone private individuals, even the State cannot impose conditions requiring the use of a specific language in personal or private spaces.

Apart from the freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(1)(d) and (e) guarantees every citizen a right to move freely, reside and settle in any part of India. The only restrictions the State can impose are identified under Article 19(5) which include the “interest of general public” or “protection of the interest of any scheduled tribe.” A citizen does not need a certificate of proficiency of the local language to move freely or reside in part of the country. Therefore any coercion to demand that persons must speak a regional language to freely reside in an area is a clear infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e).

Article 29(1) explicitly guarantees the right of any section of citizens to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture. The use of ‘conserve’ implies not only the freedom to preserve and practice one’s linguistic identity but also a corresponding freedom from being compelled to abandon or suppress it. Therefore, any act—whether by the State or by private individuals—that seeks to forcibly impose a dominant regional language upon individuals who do not natively speak it constitutes a violation of the spirit and text of Article 29(1).

In addition to this it is the fundamental duty of every citizen under Article 51(e) “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic, and regional or sectional diversities…”

Criminal Remedies against Linguistic Harassment

This brings us to the next question – what remedies does a citizen have against such linguistic harassment? There is arguably a positive obligation on the State to prevent private persons from violating fundamental rights through coercion. It may choose to deliver upon this obligation in a multitude of hitherto undecided ways. But while it does so, one avenue for state-based action already exists in the form of India’s criminal law. While the constitutional guarantees establish a right to linguistic freedom, the criminal law that secures their protection. And the harms that are visited by coercion necessarily lead us into the field of criminal law.

Under the BNS a series of provisions directly address the acts of linguistic harassment, coercion and criminal intimidation which are discussed below. Section 196 BNS, a person who promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of language and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony is punished with an imprisonment of up to three years, or with fine or with both. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Section 196 is analogous to Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), but it explicitly extends to acts committed through electronic communication, thereby including offensive social media posts, viral videos, or messages that attempt to stir linguistic discord. For an offence under Section 196 two essential ingredients must be established. First, is the presence of two groups or communities [See, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of AP]. Second, prosecution must show that the accused acted with a deliberate intention to promote enmity or disturb public peace and it was not a careless or incident remark [See, Trustees of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v. Govt of NCT Delhi; Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab]. In addition to this, the Supreme Court held in Azizul Haq Kausar Naquvi and Anr. v. State that criminality is not attached to words used rather to the manner in which they are used. It further held that “If the words spoken or written are couched in temperate, dignified, and mild language, and do not have the tendency to: insult the feelings or the deepest religious convictions of any section of the people, penal consequences do not follow.” The standard for assessing impact is that of a reasonable, strong-minded, firm, and courageous person, not that of one with weak or overly sensitive disposition, nor someone who perceives hostility in every dissenting view. The “reasonable person” test was affirmed in Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. UOI, wherein the Court approved observations in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, likened to the well-established English law standard of “the man on the Clapham omnibus.” In addition to Section 196, Section 353(2) of BNS—earlier 505(2) of IPC—makes it a crime to make, publish or circulate any statement including electronic means which is likely to create or promote feelings of enmity hatred or ill will between different linguistic groups.

In the recent past, incidents in Maharashtra and Karnataka vividly illustrated behaviour that fits within the scope of Sections 196 and 353 (2) of the BNS. For example, a video went viral where a Marathi customer threatened a non-Marathi shopkeeper to learn Marathi and warned that “If you don’t learn Marathi, I’ll close your shop in two weeks.” Then in another instance a Kannada speaking bus conductor was assaulted in Belagavi as he couldn’t speak to a passenger in Marathi. This linguistic chauvinism forced suspension of interstate bus services between Maharashtra and Karnataka. In another incident a video went viral of a heated argument between a man and an autorickshaw driver where the commuter was aggressively insisting that an autorickshaw driver converse in Hindi rather than Kannada.

There are two different groups: on one side are the native language speakers (Marathi speakers in Maharashtra, Kannada speakers in Karnataka) who assert a regional linguistic identity, and on the other are the migrant or non-native language speakers (such as Hindi-speaking or non-Kannada-speaking individuals). The incidents reflect an explicit ‘us versus them’ narrative based on language difference—a textbook case of inter-group division. Secondly, the behaviour of the aggressors leaves little doubt about their intent. A “reasonable man” can clearly identify the threatening nature of their words—such as demanding that non-natives “speak Marathi or leave” or warning that a shop “will be shut down if you don’t learn the local language”—goes far beyond casual or incidental remarks. The anger, coercion, and public humiliation evident in these threats strongly suggest a deliberate design to subordinate or expel those who do not conform linguistically, fostering hostility between the two groups. Thirdly, the manner in which these threats are delivered amplifies the gravity of the issue. These are not private disagreements or isolated exchanges; rather, they occur in public and commercial spaces and are made in an aggressive and demeaning manner, belittling a non-native speaker before onlookers and underscoring a deliberate attempt to disturb societal harmony. In most of the cases the aggressors themselves filmed confrontations and shared them on social media, amplifying the message of exclusion and hostility beyond the immediate scene. Importantly, liability under this provision extends not just to the original offenders but also to those who forward or circulate such content, as they too contribute to promoting enmity between linguistic groups and risking public disorder.

Conclusion

These incidents of linguistic coercion are not just random isolated events, they represent a deeper problem of intolerance where language is being used as a weapon to shame, threaten and exclude. There is a crucial difference between celebrating and promoting language—which is every community’s right—and bullying or intimidating others for not speaking it, which is not only socially damaging but criminal. To conclude, Language, like culture, is not meant to divide but to connect. We don’t need a single tongue to be united — we need mutual respect.