Treat hate speeches against any religion alike: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has stated that hate speeches against any religion should be treated equally and dealt with according to the law

The Supreme Court on Friday said hate speeches made against any religion needs to be “treated alike” and “dealt with as per law”, expressing hope that all states and Union territories are following the guidelines laid down in its 2018 judgment in the Tehseen Poonawala case.

Supreme Court

Read here: Investigate if murders of 4 rationalists linked: Supreme Court to CBI

The 2018 judgment laid down extensive guidelines and preventive steps to be taken by states to curb instances of mob lynching and hate speeches.

As a bench led by justice Sanjiv Khanna took up a clutch of petitions in the aftermath of the communal violence in Haryana’s Nuh district, a complaint was made before it by a a lawyer about a rally organised by the youth wing of the Indian Union Muslim League in July 26 where death for Hindus was sought.

Responding, the bench, which also comprised justice SVN Bhatti, made it clear that the apex court will not distinguish between hate speeches made against any religion and that the state police must deal with such instances in accordance with the law and the 2018 judgment.

“We are very clear. Whether it is one side or the other side, they have to be treated alike. If anyone indulges in anything which we know as ‘hate speech’, they will be dealt with as per the law...something we have already expressed our opinion on,” it emphasised.

Police in Kerala had on July 26 booked over 300 people, including members of Youth League, the youth wing of IUML which is an ally of the Congress-led UDF opposition in Kerala, for allegedly raising provocative slogans against Hindus during a march.

The bench, however, could not take up the applications in connection with the Nuh violence on Friday due to the paucity of time and posted the hearing on August 25.

Clashes erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Nuh on July 31, after mobs attacked a religious procession organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal. In the violence, which spread to nearby Gurugram as well, at least six people died while 88 others were injured.

On August 6, hundreds of people from villages in and around Gurugram gathered to attend a mahapanchayat where calls for economic and social boycott of Muslims were allegedly made. On August 11, the Supreme Court took note of the speeches made at the mahapanchayat calling them “unacceptable”.

On August 11, the court 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 (DGP) because nuances of law on hate speech cannot be appreciated by an inspector-level officer.

The proposition came in response to two applications filed by Shaheen Abdullah, giving instances of alleged hate speeches 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.

On the day, additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appeared for Centre and Haryana government was given a week’s time to come back with instructions on the formation of the committee to examine the material and verify if lodging of criminal cases was made out.

Abdullah’s applications, argued through senior counsel Kapil Sibal, had attached an audio clip of a procession held by Samasth Hindu Samaj at Hisar organised on August 2 where an open warning was reportedly 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’. They also referred to two other events held at Sagar in Madhya Pradesh and Fazilka in Punjab where alleged hate speeches against Muslims were given on August 4 and 6 respectively.

Read here: Can’t restrain Bihar from releasing caste census data: Supreme Court

During the hearing on August 11, the court was informed that the 2018 judgment required each state to designate a nodal officer for registration of hate crimes and pursue investigations into such cases.

The Supreme Court, in this batch of matters, has been monitoring the steps taken by the Centre and states to act against instances of hate speech. While it has issued orders on several individual applications moved against hate speeches in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Delhi, the court has been attempting to formalise a mechanism of law enforcement at the local level in terms of its 2018 judgment so that the apex court does not become the first forum for an aggrieved party to approach for registration of FIRs.