Supreme Court extends suo motu action against hate speech to all States and UTs, irrespective of religion. The Court warns that any failure to act would be viewed as contempt of court. The order came as a response to a batch of petitions seeking action against hate crimes across the country. The Court directed that action should be taken immediately and without waiting for a formal complaint, as per the provisions of IPC sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506. The respondents have been instructed to issue directions to their subordinates to ensure prompt action against offenders.
Supreme Court directs all states and UTs to take action against hate speeches, irrespective of the religion of the speaker, in order to preserve India's secular character as envisaged by the Preamble. The order was issued in response to an application filed by Advocate Nizam Pasha seeking directions to curb hate speeches. Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for PUCL, also submitted additional suggestions. The Court had previously sought the response of the State of Maharashtra in a contempt petition alleging failure to act against hate speeches during rallies. Expressing concern over the rise in hate speech cases, the bench emphasized the importance of communal harmony and brotherhood. In February, the bench had passed directions to the Maharashtra authorities regarding rallies held by Sakal Hindu Samaj, including videorecording of speeches.
During a recent hearing, Justice Joseph warned the State of Maharashtra to not take the Court's orders lightly with regards to action against hate speeches. The State had filed a counter affidavit in response to a contempt petition, in which the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. SV Raju, submitted that FIRs had been registered even in cases not pointed out by the petitioners. However, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh alleged inaction on the part of the State, stating that several rallies had taken place after February 5th and that certain individuals were repeatedly making hateful statements without any action being taken. Justice Joseph clarified that the Court's directive was not aimed at any specific community, but rather that action should be taken irrespective of religion.
During the hearing, the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, argued that there is already a remedy available as per the CrPC and the order of the Apex Court in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. He asserted that no one from the Central or State Governments justifies hate speeches, and that if such speeches do occur, the remedy is given in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. Mr. Mehta emphasized that hate speech is a serious offence and that the concerned police station must be approached to remedy the situation. If the police refuse, one can invoke 156(3) to approach the Magistrate.
Justice Joseph agreed that hate speech is an offence affecting the fabric of the nation. The Solicitor General contended that every instance of hate speech is now being challenged before the Apex Court by way of filing an application in the main petition, which has reduced the Apex Court to a Magistrate Court. Mr. Mehta argued that this is a serious problem, and that there is a remedy available to address it. He suggested that the Apex Court should not be taking over the duty of the Magistrate, and that applications for hate speech should be filed with the concerned police station.
Mr. Parikh, representing the petitioner, informed the Bench that in some states, no action is being taken against hate speech despite the Supreme Court's order. He added that the statements being made are shocking, and that MPs and MLAs are present at such meetings. The Solicitor General requested the Bench to first decide whether the Apex Court should take action.
One of the Counsels for the petitioner argued that this is a pan-India issue. However, Justice Joseph stated that they are not aware of hate speech instances in all parts of the country. He noted that they only passed the order for suo motu action against hate speech to prevent it from going out of hand. The Solicitor General agreed that the Government shares the same concern, but pointed out that there are now hundreds of applications being filed, and it is difficult to draw the line.
The Bench allowed the intervention application filed by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, which highlighted instances of calls for beheading of a specific community across the country. Justice Joseph reiterated that the Bench is apolitical and only concerned with the Constitution. He requested all Counsel present to refrain from bringing politics into the proceedings and emphasized that action should be taken irrespective of religion.
TAGS: Keywords: hate speech Supreme Court contempt petition Maharashtra Tehseen Poonawalla CrPC remedy Solicitor General pan-India issue dignity apolitical Constitution intervention application call for beheading community.
