E-Paper
Approach Centre for ‘racial slur’ as hate crime: SC
The SC urged a petitioner to approach the government for recognising racial slurs as hate crimes
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed a petitioner seeking the use of “racial slurs” to be recognised as a separate category of hate crimes to approach the Union government even as it observed that the instances of violent crimes against persons from Northeast should be curbed with an “iron hand”.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, “It is unfortunate that such incidents have happened,” referring to the death of Anjel Chakma, a student from Tripura who was attacked along with his brother in December 2025 while they were shopping in Selaqui area in Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
“Such incidents must be curbed with an iron hand,” added the bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi while hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi.
The petition sought guidelines recognising the use of racial slurs as a separate category of hate crime and sought directions for creating a body in every state for reporting racial crimes along with a dedicated police unit to investigate the same in each district or metropolitan area. He also sought direction for a time-bound investigation into Chakma’s death.
Addressing his request for guidelines, the court expressed its hesitation and said, “If we identify victims based on their region, it will be regressive and create a divisive society. Is it desirable after 75 years of our Constitution?”
The court permitted the petitioner to supply a copy of the petition to Attorney General R Venkataramani with a direction saying, “We deem it appropriate that the aforesaid issues ought to be brought before the competent authority through the good office of the Attorney General.” The court allowed Awasthi to present the order copy to the AG to enable him take up the matter with the appropriate authority.
Awasthi urged the court to acknowledge the serious issue of violence against persons from the Northeast in the light of Chakma’s death. He claimed that the Centre had given an assurance in Parliament to consider making appropriate changes in the new penal laws introduced in 2023 (to take cognisance of such crimes) and that this has not been done.
The court felt that such an issue can be best addressed by Parliament. “They are public representatives and can understand any negative effect of allowing such a request.”
Referring to the demand in the petition for fast-tracking the probe into Chakma’s death, the bench noted that the incident took place in Uttarakhand and that this demand could be addressed by the concerned high court.
In late December, group of men accosted Chakma and his brother , targetting them with racial slurs on account of their appearance. The mob refused to listen to the duo’s remonstrations that they were Indians, and stabbed Chakma in the neck. He succumbed to his injuries on December 27.The police arrested five persons in connection with Chakma’s death.
But the problem is a larger one, as Awasthi states in his petition.
“The petition arises from a continuing constitutional failure reflected in repeated instances of racial abuse, dehumanisation, and violence against Indian citizens belonging to the north-eastern states and other frontier regions, who are routinely targeted across the country solely due to their physical appearance and ethnic features.”
