Can curb hate speech by not mixing politics, religion: SC

According to the bench, there are politicians who use religion and this connection between religion and politics has created several problems.

A large part of the problem of hate speech will go away if politicians stop mixing politics with religion, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday, lamenting that State’s “impotence” has led to a spurt in hate speeches and thus, “cracks in fraternity” and “intellectual depravement”.

A large part of the problem of hate speech will go away if politicians stop mixing politics with religion, the Supreme Court observed (HT File)

“The moment politics and religion are segregated, most of the problems of hate speech will go away. The law commands against it and then you also have the Representation of People Act...but the moment you separate politics from religion and politics stop using religion, this will come down,” said a bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna.

According to the bench, there are politicians who use religion and this connection between religion and politics has created several problems. “It then becomes a vicious circle. It is one reaction to another reaction and so on and so forth. The State will have to be vigilant. The major problem is when a politician makes use of religion...It is because of State’s impotence and the State doesn’t react in time,” it added.

The court further rued that “fringe elements” from all sides are making hate speeches. “Where are you taking India to? We want to make India number one but we have internalised this. If there is intellectual depravement, we can never take the country to those heights. And the intellectual depravement comes from intolerance, lack of wisdom,” observed the court, as it heard a clutch of petitions demanding a crackdown on hate speeches across the country.

The bench wondered if the Supreme Court would have to become the first court of adjudication in all cases of hate speech just because it issued broad guidelines in the matter. “Do we initiate contempt action against all the citizens of the country? How can the Supreme Court spend time on something like this? Can we hear contempt (plea) after contempt on an issue like this? Why can’t citizens of this country take a pledge not to vilify anyone? What’s the benefit people derive from vilification? The State have a mechanism so that it doesn’t start at the Supreme Court,” it told solicitor general Tushar Mehta.

The court added that cracks are appearing in society because of lack of fraternity. “This is a country which everyone looks up to for spiritual legacy. Tolerance is not just putting up with someone but respecting their views too. If we want to become a super power, the first thing we must have is the rule of law. And the Preamble talks about fraternity which also goes on to establishing the rule of law...There must be restraint on every citizen against hate speech. The state should come up with a mechanism to curb such type of actions,” it said.

Mehta, appearing for the Union government, responded that although there is already a mechanism in place in terms of nodal police officers, certain instances of hate speech are being selectively brought up before the top court to primarily target just one community (Hindus).

Mehta cited instances of alleged hate speeches from Kerala and Tamil Nadu against Hindus, imploring the court to take cognisance of the material and seek explanations from the states concerned. He added that “public-spirited citizens” should be questioned why everything about one religion (Hindus) is brought to the court while they turn a blind eye to hate speeches made by others.

At one point, justice Joseph said that a lot of hate speeches result from reaction to offending statements made earlier, but Mehta strongly objected to this. “Please, do not justify this. This can go as a justification to what they are doing. And let me add that such statements have been made long before all this has started before this court...why is this court shying away from looking at these statements against Hindus, Christians and others,” he said.

Advocate Vishnu Jain, on his part, intervened to complain that his plea against the beheading comment (sar tan se juda) at various public gatherings was yet to be heard by the court, and that the state authorities should be directed to report back to the bench on this.

Jain was representing a registered Trust, ‘Hindu Front for Justice’, in the ongoing hate speech case, as he referred to instances from Ajmer, Azamgarh, Hyderabad, Jaunpur, Amethi and Somnath when the Muslim mobs allegedly called for beheading.

The bench, however, said that it would not pass any order on the pleas made by Mehta or Jain since those matters were not on record before it. It went on to seek a response from the Maharashtra government over a news article produced by a Kerala-based petitioner pointing to 50 hate speech rallies in the state over the last four months, and fixed the matter for April 20.

Kerala-based Shaheen Abdullah, represented through advocate Nizam Pasha, sought initiation of a contempt action against the Maharashtra government for failing to curb hate speech rallies in the state calling for an economic and social boycott of Muslims.