E-Paper
‘What have we reduced God to’: Supreme Court acts on hate speech
A bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said, “This is the 21st century. What have we reduced God to? Article 51 says we should have a scientific temper. In the name of religion (what is happening). This is tragic.”
Worried about a “climate of hate” in a “religion-neutral” country, the Supreme Court on Friday passed stringent orders to the police chiefs of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to file suo motu cases against hate speeches made by people from any religion, and warned of contempt action if the orders of the court are not complied with.
The order came on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Shaheen Abdullah, who highlighted instances of hate speech against Muslims made at separate events in the three states.
Also Read| Hate speeches sullying atmosphere in India: SC
A bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said, “This is the 21st century. What have we reduced God to? Article 51 says we should have a scientific temper. In the name of religion (what is happening). This is tragic.”
Article 51(A)(h), which underlines Fundamental Duties, says: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform.”
The court said, “The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony.”
To be sure, the bench clarified that its directions were not restricted to hate speech against Islam, but against any religion.
Issuing a notice on the PIL, the court said, “Complaint seems to be very serious as a climate of hate has come to prevail in the country. The matter needs examination. We feel the court is tasked to protect fundamental rights and preserve rule of law. The police heads of respondents — Delhi, UP and Uttarakhand — will file report on what action has been taken. They would ensure as to when any speech that attracts provisions under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of Indian Penal Code, suo motu action be taken against offenders without any complaint being filed.”
It said that the inability on part of the respondents to act on the order will be viewed as contempt. “The respondents (police chiefs of the three states) will pass suitable orders to ensure action is taken against individuals, regardless of any religion they may belong, so that the secular character of the country is preserved.”
The PIL contended inaction by administration to curb hate speeches made against Muslims in separate events and by elected representatives of people. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioner, told the court that a matter is already pending in the Supreme Court where orders were issued to state police authorities to take preventive action before such hate speeches are made. However, he said that was forced to approach the court again after another event took place in Delhi on October 9 where hate speeches against Muslims were made.
Also Read| Can’t use hate speech to drive TV ratings: Supreme Court
The petition referred to the statement by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of Parliament Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, who gave a call for social boycott of Muslims, without naming them, at a ‘Jan Akrosh’ meeting organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on October 9 to protest against the murder of a 25-year-old man near Delhi’s Dilshad Garden allegedly by three Muslims.
Referring to Verma’s statements, the bench said, “These statements are certainly very strong for a country that professes to be a democracy and religion-neutral. You are saying that anything said to be offensive, regardless of the guarantee of freedom of free speech, there should be some action.”
Verma did not respond to HT’s queries on the matter.
The court, in an exchange with Sibal, said that such statements are also being made against Hindus. “We think both sides are indulging in such talk. Courts should come down upon all who engage in such speech.”
The court asked Sibal: “Are Muslims also making hate speeches?” The senior advocate replied: “Do you think they will be spared? Anybody who makes such speeches should not be spared.”
The bench then said: “Are we not looking at a particular kind of statement being highlighted against one community? As courts, we should be conscious of that.”
At the end of the hearing, Sibal told the court, “At least, somebody has listened to us.”
The petition seeks a special investigation team (SIT) to probe separate instances of hate speeches made against Muslims. It has alleged that, in some cases, FIRs were registered against the organisers of the events but not against those who made the speeches.
Between 2016 and 2022, Delhi Police have filed 173 cases of hate speech.
A senior police official, asking not to be named, said that the highest number of cases has been filed in 2022 so far, with 57 cases registered under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code filed till October 19, followed by 53 in 2020. “We have filed charge sheets in 53 of 173 cases and filed the closure report in other 57. The remaining 63 cases are still under investigation,” he said.
