Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) has formally urged the Telangana State Legislature's Select Committee to withdraw the Telangana Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2026, warning that its provisions are vague, disproportionate, and susceptible to misuse against the Opposition, the press, and lawful political criticism. The party submitted a detailed memorandum to the committee on 26 October 2026.

Key Objections Raised by BRS

BRS Legal Cell in-charge and General Secretary Soma Bharat Kumar clarified in the memorandum that the party was not opposed to action against genuine incitement to violence or hatred. However, he argued that the Bill overreached what was constitutionally necessary and raised serious civil liberties concerns.

The party contended that existing statutes — including provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, and directions issued by the Supreme Court — already provided an adequate legal framework to address hate speech. According to the BRS, the primary deficit lies in enforcement, not in any legislative gap.

Concerns Over Punishment Thresholds and Presumption of Innocence

The BRS particularly challenged provisions that classify offences as cognizable and non-bailable, and that prescribe punishment of up to seven years for a first offence and up to 10 years for repeat offences. The party argued that classifying a person as a repeat offender solely on the basis of an earlier charge — rather than a conviction — could undermine the fundamental legal presumption of innocence and expose individuals to immediate arrest without adequate safeguards.

Vague Definitions and Chilling Effect on Free Speech

The memorandum also took aim at undefined terms in the draft legislation, including 'injury', 'disharmony', 'enmity' and 'ill-will'. The BRS warned that the absence of precise definitions could bring political speeches, satire, investigative journalism, and criticism of public institutions within the ambit of the law, producing a chilling effect on media freedom and political dissent. Critics argue this ambiguity is precisely the kind of legislative drafting that courts have historically struck down on grounds of vagueness.

Demand for Judicial Oversight on Content Removal

The party additionally opposed proposed executive powers that would allow authorities to order the removal of online content without judicial oversight. The BRS insisted that any content take-down mechanism must be subject to procedural safeguards and court supervision, rather than left to executive discretion.

BRS Conditions for Redrafting the Bill

Should the Select Committee decline to withdraw the Bill entirely, the BRS has outlined a set of minimum conditions for redrafting. These include introducing clear and precise definitions, explicitly protecting fair reporting and criticism of governments and political parties, restoring the presumption of innocence, and mandating judicial oversight over content blocking orders.

The party also called for wider public consultation, open committee hearings, and an extension of the memorandum submission period by at least 30 days before the Bill proceeds further. The Select Committee's response and the Bill's next legislative stage remain to be announced.