Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said the Bill was being implemented to safeguard peace and fraternity, noting that hate speech had increased in recent times. File
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Monday (December 22, 2025) dismissed Opposition to the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, asserting that only those who indulge in provocative speeches are opposing the legislation.
Responding to questions from reporters in Mysuru, Mr. Siddaramaiah said no criminal case would be registered unnecessarily if no provocative speech was made, and questioned the need for the BJP to oppose the Bill.
Asked whether BJP leaders were engaging in such speeches, the Chief Minister invoked a popular Kannada idiom to suggest a guilty conscience, remarking—loosely translated—why one would feel compelled to check one’s shoulder if someone merely called out a “pumpkin thief”.
Reacting to the BJP’s allegation that the Bill was drafted to target specific individuals, Mr. Siddaramaiah said the law would apply uniformly to members of all political parties, including the Congress, BJP, JD(S), Communist parties, and others. “Why are you opposing it? Does hate speech help maintain peace in society?” he asked.
Editorial | Playing to the gallery: On the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025
He said the Bill was being implemented to safeguard peace and fraternity, noting that hate speech had increased in recent times. The legislation, he said, was aimed at curbing this trend, adding that the BJP’s strong opposition stemmed from its indulgence in hate speech.
Gruha Lakshmi funds
Responding to questions on the government’s failure to release two months of Gruha Lakshmi assistance for February and March, Mr. Siddaramaiah assured that the pending amounts would be disbursed after due examination.
Dismissing allegations of misappropriation levelled by the Opposition, he pointed out that the scheme had already been implemented for 23 months. “When money is transferred directly to the beneficiaries’ bank accounts, how does the question of misappropriation arise?” he asked, adding that the funds had not yet been released and therefore could not have been siphoned off.
Published – December 22, 2025 04:39 pm IST
