E-Paper
‘What have we reduced God to’: Supreme Court orders action against hate speech
The Supreme Court, in an exchange with senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, said 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.”
NEW DELHI: 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 petition by journalist Shaheen Abdullah, who highlighted instances of hate speech against Muslims made at separate events in the three states.
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 and (what is happening) in the name of religion. This is tragic.”
The bench clarified that its directions were not restricted to hate speech against a particular religion.
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.”
Issuing 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 reports 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 the administration to curb hate speeches made against Muslims in separate events and by elected representatives.
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, he was forced to approach the court again after another event took place in Delhi on October 9 where hate speeches against Muslims were made.
The petition also referred to a statement by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of Parliament, who gave a call for social boycott of Muslims.
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.”
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.”
At the end of the hearing, Sibal told the court, “At least, somebody has listened to us.”
