MNS Leaders’ Language Attacks: Constitutional Rights Under Threat in Maharashtra

History to Freedom of Speech and the Rules in India

The India Constitution entitles the people of the country of fundamental rights. The right to freedom of speech and expression is deemed in Article 19(1) (a). This is one of the fundamental rights of a democratic state as citizens have the freedom to voice their opinions and views and beliefs without unnecessary intrusion. This freedom is however not specific. This right contained under Article 19(2) has listed specific grounds on which reasonable restrictions may apply to this right. These reasons would be the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, healthy relation with foreign States, public order, reasonable decency or morality, the contempt of court, defamation or being an incitement of an offence. The nature of freedom of expression verses these restrictions is ever important in establishing a peaceful society and peaceful order.

✖

Hate Speech and the Indian Law

Hate speech is a major societal issue in any multicultural society including India as it is a speech that propagates hatred, hostility, or even violence against another person or group due to their attributes like religious faith, race or religious group, region of birth, residence, language, caste, or community, etc. The hate speech is covered by the Indian law in different modalities, mainly in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 153A of the IPC imposes punishment on anyone who attempts or promotes enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community and such acts that may hurt the integrity of maintenance of harmony. The section 153B of the IPC concerns itself with malicious charges, statements detrimental to national integration. Under section 295A of IPC, the deliberate incitement and severe attention to hurt religious sentiments on purpose, which through an insult to a class of religious is produced, should be dealt with. The section 505 of the IPC is in relation to statements which are conducive to the public mischief. The aim of these sections is to curb speech that may cause; the outbreak of civic unrest, community conflict and domestic discord. The same has been upheld consistently by the Indian court including the Supreme court as applying a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(2) needed to maintain the order of the society.

MNS and accused of defining words in an inflammatory manner

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena MNS is a political party found in Maharashtra. The MNS head and its leader, Raj Thackeray has been against making speeches and comments that are considered to be provocative particularly on any issue, be it linguistic identity and regional identity within the state of Maharashtra.

Individual cases are reported where the MNS leaders have supported the primacy of the Marathi language and the Marathi manoos (Marathi people), the rhetoric of which has been interpreted to be on the non-Marathi speaking majority living in Maharashtra and especially those migrants who belong to other Indians states. These have been said numerous times in political gatherings, rallies and on media contact.

Certain Cases and judicial Interventions

Previously, there have been various incidents that have taken place causing prosecution of the MNS leaders on account of hate speech. As an illustration, in 2008, Raj Thackeray was the subject of several complaints and cases in different courts throughout India including the States of Jharkhand and Bihar of making so-called rabble-rousing speeches against persons of Bihari and other North Indian states origins. Such complaints were registered against clauses under the IPC (provisions of 153A and 153B) on the charges of causing disharmony between communities. In some cases, the progress has been made, whereas some have come to judicial orders such as Bombay High Court noting a lack of material on record on claim of other provocative speech and instigation against Raj Thackeray in 2008 case.

Most recently, there was a stir in July 2025 in Maharashtra of Marathi language. Raj Thackeray is said to have directed workers of MNS to make sure that non-Marathi speakers in Mumbai learn the local language and there were reports that the workers were beating up people who refused to use Marathi. This called consternation and protests against such acts and rants from various political leaders who criticized the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra on the unacceptable nature of some of the remarks. A social media celebrity also filed an FIR claiming that the threats and abuse that she had to face due to the language controversy were because of a son of this MNS leader.

Affections to Public Order and Constitutional Matters

Language employed by political leaders directly affects the course of the case of people order as well as using constitutional rights. Speeches that stipulate separating people, in terms of language or geography can trigger aggression, develop an atmosphere of terror, and possibly result in scenes of violence or discrimination. This directly compromises the rights to equality (Article 14), life and personal liberty (Article 21), the right to reside and settle at any part of India (Article 19(1)(e)) of the persons falling victims of such propaganda.

The constitution requires the state to safeguard these basic rights to all crooks in the state. Considerations of MNS leaders and party workers, translating into incitement or direct incitement of civil unrest through linguistic assault move in asking the question of the effectiveness of the legal frameworks in their application.

Regulatory Body Role

Model Code of Conduct The Election Commission of India (ECI), regulates political speech at least temporarily, during the periods of elections through the Model Code of Conduct. The ECI has the power of issuing directives and acting against political parties and candidates who misuse the provisions against hate speech/communal speech. Even after election cycles, it is the law enforcement agencies who must investigate and put to trial the cases under the appropriate section of the IPC when hate speech is claimed. The judicial system in the interpretation of the laws and determination of the scope of person-specific troubles outlines the limit of the allowable speech and implications of the reasonable limits.

All the events of the recent past in Maharashtra (language-based rhetoric by MNS leaders) indicate the fact that the question of upholding the basic right to one of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and the need to preserve the law and order and uphold the rights of all individuals is something that continues to exist in the Indian society. The laws in India give a foundation under which hate speech can be dealt with through the several sections of the IPC and under the constitution. These laws are only as sound as they are uniformly and un-favorably pursued and judicially interpreted in striking a balance between the personal freedoms and the general social benefits. The fact that such cases continue to point a finger at, lawsuits are filed, and the attention in the media, the value of constitutional principles in a diverse and democratic country is very much alive. Sources