Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Legal Response to Hate Crimes

The introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) has sparked significant conversation among legal scholars, practitioners, and human rights activists alike. Among its many provisions, Section 103(2) stands out for its specific focus on crimes motivated by prejudice based on religion, race, caste, or community—an acknowledgment of the growing threat of hate crimes in modern India. This section is not just another legal clause—it reflects a necessary shift in the way Indian criminal law recognizes and responds to crimes rooted in identity-based hatred.

Section 103 of the BNS broadly deals with murder, which corresponds to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, sub-section (2) introduces a notable aggravating circumstance: if a murder is committed based on the victim’s

identity—religion, race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief—it can attract more severe punishment. The provision aims to tackle what are commonly known as hate crimes—

criminal acts where the motive is not just personal animosity, but a deeper, societal prejudice.

The inclusion of this clause signals a recognition by the Indian legislature that not all murders are equal in motive or impact. A hate crime is not just an offence against an individual; it is an act of violence against an entire community’s sense of safety and dignity. Such crimes are intended to send a message of fear and exclusion. Until now, Indian criminal law lacked a distinct legal recognition of this deeper dimension. Section 103(2) seeks to change that.

From a judicial standpoint, this provision brings both new responsibilities and new challenges. Judges and prosecutors will now be required to go beyond the basic facts of homicide and examine the motive behind the act—was it an act of personal vengeance or was it rooted in the victim’s identity? Establishing such intent requires a careful assessment of the accused's prior conduct, statements, affiliations, and possibly even social media activity. This will inevitably increase the complexity of trials and the evidentiary burden.

The success of this provision depends on clear guidelines for investigation and prosecution. Law enforcement must be sensitized and trained to identify hate crimes at the ground level. Often, bias-motivated crimes are registered as simple assaults or murders, with no mention of communal or identity-based motives. Without proper classification at the FIR stage and thorough investigation into motive, the protection intended by Section 103(2) will remain on paper.

Moreover, the judiciary must be cautious of politicization and misuse. In a polarised socio political climate, there is always the risk that allegations of hate crime can be exaggerated or manipulated for political purposes. The courts will have to carefully balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect vulnerable communities from targeted violence.

The enactment of this provision must also be seen in the light of India’s constitutional values. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Section 103(2) reinforces these constitutional promises through a strong legal response to acts that violate them.

In conclusion, Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a timely and much-needed legal provision that acknowledges the gravity of hate crimes in Indian society. It provides the judiciary with a tool to respond more forcefully to crimes that target people for who they are, not just what they did. But to make it effective, the legal ecosystem—from police to prosecutors to judges—must treat hate crime not as a political issue, but as a serious violation of human dignity and constitutional morality. Only then will this legal innovation translate into real protection for the most vulnerable among us.