SC: Police need to be sensitised on hate speech

The court proposed having a committee formed by the DGP to examine the material containing the hate speeches

New Delhi

The court was responding to two applications filed by one Shaheen Abdullah giving instances of hate speech made against Muslims at rallies conducted in Haryana by Hindu groups. (FILE)

Terming hate speeches against any religious community unacceptable, the Supreme Court on Friday proposed that instances of hate speech reported across Haryana in the aftermath of the violence in Nuh district be handled by a committee set up by the director general of police as nuances of law on hate speech cannot be appreciated by an inspector-level officer.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said, “There must be harmony and comity between religious communities for which all communities are equally responsible.”

The court was responding to two applications filed by one Shaheen Abdullah giving instances of hate speech made against Muslims at rallies conducted in Haryana by Hindu groups, in which an open call was made not to employ Muslims at the shops.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Abdullah, said, “This kind of vitriol cannot go on,” as he pointed out that the occurrence was not just limited to Haryana but in other states as well.

The bench said, “This is not acceptable,” as it asked the Centre, “What can be the solution.”

The court proposed having a committee formed by the DGP to examine the material containing the hate speeches produced in the two applications and verify if lodging of criminal cases was made out.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appeared for Centre and Haryana government and said, “We also do not support hate speech. The law is settled on what action is to be taken by states in this regard. But somehow, at some places, it is not working.” The Court posted the matter next Friday to enable the law officer take instructions on the committee to go into the material.

“We want the petitioner to collate the material (on hate speeches) that can be given to the committee so formed. A mechanism shall be put in place by Friday. This Court should not become the court of first instance where persons come seeking registration of FIRs,” the bench said.

Sibal pointed out that registration of FIR is the next stage but the first step is to prevent such events from happening. His application attached an audio clip of a procession held by Samasth Hindu Samaj at Hisar organised on August 2 where an open warning was issued to residents not to employ any person from the Muslim community in their houses or shops as those found to do so will be branded as ‘traitors’.

The application also referred to two other events held at Sagar in Madhya Pradesh and Fazilka in Punjab where hate speeches were given on August 4 and 6 respectively. The Sagar event showed Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Kapil Swami saying that Muslims in Mewat have no right to earn a livelihood for persecuting Hindus. At the other event, a Bajrang Dal leader was seen spewing hate against Muslims and justifying the killing of two Muslim youths by cow vigilante groups.

“At some of these events, the police were seen at the site. Our worry is these speeches and processions will continue to go on,” Sibal said, agreeing to the Court’s suggestion to supply all material to the committee so formed by the state police. The bench added, “If we find there is violation of law, the question will arise whether there is willful default by the police so that such events are stopped for the future.”

The court said that its order of August 2 directed the Centre and three states including Haryana to videograph the events and preserve the recording as also the CCTV footage. “At the station house officer level, understanding the nuances of law is difficult. Officers at the higher level will be more sensitised to these issues.”

As a bunch of other petitions on hate speech were also listed before the Court, lawyers appearing in those matters informed the Court that the work proposed to be done by the committee in Haryana was envisaged in the 2018 Tehseen Poonawala judgment where each state was required to set up a nodal officer for registration of hate crimes. The Uttarakhand government informed the Court that the nodal officer in the state is the deputy superintendent of police who ensures FIRs get filed and steps taken to pursue with the investigation.

The Court said that the DGP or the nodal officer-headed committee can perform this task by meeting periodically and ascertaining the progress of investigation. The Haryana government informed the Court that FIRs have been registered and investigation was on.