Supreme Court junks plea seeking new legislation for hate speech

THe sublime margaret court on wed reminded public figures of their tariff to work out restraint in public discourse, holding that hate speech is antithetical to the constitutional value of fraternity and strikes at the moral fabric of our Republic.Dismissing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking separate offences for hate speech and rumour-mongering, a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said: “In a constitutional democracy, public discourse carries with it a corresponding duty of restraint and responsibility. Individuals, public figures, and institutions alike must remain mindful that words have consequences, particularly in a society as diverse as ours.”The court held that existing penal laws adequately address hate speech and described the petition as “misconceived” in assuming that the field of hate speech remains “legislatively unoccupied”.At the same time, the bench said it would be open to the Union of India and competent legislative authorities to consider whether further legal or policy measures were needed in light of evolving societal challenges. It also asked the Centre and states to consider suitable amendments suggested by the Law Commission in its March 2017 report on hate speech.Also read: SC disposes of activist Teesta Setalvad’s application seeking passport release“Hate speech is not merely a deviation from acceptable discourse; it is fundamentally antithetical to the constitutional value of fraternity and strikes at the moral fabric of our Republic,” the bench said.The judgment added that such speech runs counter to India’s civilisational ethos, referring to the ancient maxim vasudhaiva kutumbakam -- the idea that the world is one family.It said it was “inconceivable” that in such a country citizens should be classified or discriminated against on grounds such as caste, colour, creed, gender or any other marker rooted in an “us versus them” mindset.“Hate speech, in this sense, is not merely an exercise of free expression but a distortion of it, one that undermines the constitutional promise of an inclusive and cohesive society by fostering hostility and discrimination against identifiable groups,” it added.The 125-page judgment, authored by Justice Nath, said the idea of belonging to one nation cannot be made contingent upon selective inclusion or exclusion, but requires a collective commitment to shared constitutional values. “Fraternity, therefore, demands that every citizen recognise and respect the equal dignity of others, irrespective of differences, and consciously eschew conduct that undermines social harmony,” it said.The court added that once this constitutional ideal is internalised, “the very impulse to engage in hate speech would stand diminished”.The judgment disposed of a batch of 13 connected petitions citing instances of alleged hate speech where police and courts had failed to register FIRs. These included speeches at the Dharam Sansad event in Haridwar in 2023 targeting Muslims.Referring to its Lalita Kumari judgment ruling of 2014, the bench said police are duty-bound to register an FIR where a cognisable offence is disclosed. It added that aggrieved persons may also approach courts under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers magistrates to direct registration of FIRs.The judgment clarified that while considering such complaints, a magistrate need not seek prior sanction under Sections 196 or 197 of the CrPC at the FIR stage, as sanction is required only when cognisance of charges is taken.This issue arose in one of the petitions filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat challenging a 2022 Delhi High Court ruling that granted relief to BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Pravesh Verma.The Supreme Court partly set aside the High Court’s finding on prior sanction, but did not disturb its ultimate conclusion that the speeches in question did not disclose a cognisable offence.The court directed that a copy of the judgment to be circulated to all high courts, leaving it open to them to issue practice guidelines for implementing.Several lawyers sought continued monitoring by the court, arguing that hate speech often goes unpunished despite existing law. The bench declined.“To assume a role of continuous supervisory oversight over executive or investigative functions, particularly in anticipation of possible default, would not only blur constitutional boundaries but also amount to an impermissible expansion of judicial power beyond its legitimate limits,” it said.The court said the problem was not one of legislative vacuum, but of inadequate or uneven invocation of existing legal processes.It added that policymaking and legislative choices fall squarely within the domain of legislature, and that courts may only draw attention to emerging concerns.The court also dealt with contempt petitions alleging police inaction in registering hate speech cases. While several were dismissed, some matters in which responses were awaited were listed for further hearing on May 19.