The criminal action demanded by opposition ranks against Minister of State Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti relates to the hate speech provision, Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes a maximum sentence of three years of imprisonment. Nobody can however be charged under this section without the government’s sanction. Since hate speech is widely recognised as an exception to the freedom of speech, Section 153A holds to account anybody “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion … and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”. Despite the impunity for hate speech in India, this provision often figures in political discourse, especially in the run-up to elections, as it did in the Sadhvi’s case in Delhi. The most prominent hate speech cases in the recent past have been against Akbaruddin Owaisi, Raj Thackeray and Varun Gandhi. But when a PIL petition before the 2014 Lok Sabha poll sought a direction from the Election Commission to curb hate speech, the Supreme Court declined to intervene citing the danger of encroaching on the fundamental right to free speech. One of the grounds on which the Constitution empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech is public order. According to the opposition parties, Niranjan Jyoti’s attempt to divide society into Ramzadas and Haramzadas was meant to promote enmity between communities, which is an ingredient of Section 153A. When a religious preacher-turned-government minister appeared to describe non-Hindus as “bastard children” at a campaign rally in Delhi recently, she set off a firestorm of criticism, derailing legislative work and prompting calls in Parliament for her to be sacked. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi said had “very sternly” told Members of his party that he disapproved of “such language” and had asked them “to stay away from such things,” but does this absolves the constitutional responsibility on an elected Member of the Parliament and give immunity to use such words even outside or in public.