Telangana Bill Faces BRS Pushback

Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) has urged the State Legislature’s Select Committee to withdraw the Telangana Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2026, terming its provisions vague, disproportionate and liable to be misused against the Opposition, media and lawful criticism.

In a memorandum submitted to the Select Committee, BRS Legal Cell in-charge and General Secretary Soma Bharat Kumar said the party supported firm action against genuine incitement to violence and hatred, but argued that the proposed legislation went beyond what was necessary and raised serious constitutional concerns.

The BRS said existing laws, including provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act and Supreme Court directions, already provided a legal framework to deal with hate speech. It argued that the primary gap was in enforcement rather than the absence of legislation.

The party particularly objected to provisions making offences cognizable and non-bailable and prescribing punishment of up to seven years for a first offence and 10 years for repeat offences. It claimed that defining a repeat offender merely on the basis of an earlier charge could undermine the presumption of innocence and expose individuals to immediate arrest.

The BRS also questioned terms such as “injury”, “disharmony”, “enmity” and “ill-will”, saying they were undefined and could potentially cover political speeches, satire, investigative journalism and criticism of public institutions. It warned that such provisions could have a chilling effect on the media and political dissent.

The party further opposed the proposed executive powers to order content removal, arguing that take-down decisions should instead be subject to judicial oversight and procedural safeguards.

If the Bill is not withdrawn, the BRS urged the committee to fundamentally redraft it by introducing clear definitions, protecting fair reporting and criticism of governments and political parties, restoring the presumption of innocence and ensuring judicial oversight over content blocking.

It also sought wider public consultation, open hearings and an extension of the memorandum submission period by at least 30 days before the Bill is considered further.