Today, On 14th November, The Supreme Court emphasized that hate speech is distinct and should not be conflated with incorrect statements or false claims. This statement was made while dismissing a PIL that sought guidelines to address hate speech. The Court clarified that hate speech has specific characteristics that set it apart from mere misinformation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32, which sought urgent action against a surge in incendiary speeches that allegedly threaten state security, promote divisive ideologies, and undermine national unity.
The petition, submitted by the Hindu Sena Samiti, called for the establishment of guidelines to regulate and prevent provocative speech that jeopardizes the sovereignty and security of the State. It claimed that inflammatory statements, mainly from political figures, repeatedly incited secessionist actions and armed insurrection, posing a serious threat to the country’s sovereignty and social cohesion.
Read Also: Hate Speech Case|| MP Government Informs Supreme Court To Watch on Social Media.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, stated,
“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged references… Further, there is a difference between hate speech and… the definition of hate speech is specific and cannot be equated with wrong assertions or false claims. In case the petitioner has any grievance, they may raise the same in accordance with law. We make no comments, in either way, in this regard.”
During the hearing, Advocate Kunwar Aditya Singh, along with Advocate Swatantra Rai, represented the petitioner.
At the outset, Singh argued,
“It is a writ petition in the nature of a PIL. We are seeking guidelines for…”
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) stated,
“That is being examined in that case. We are dealing with it. You have gone all over the space without realizing what is hate speech.”
CJI Khanna further noted,
“In none of the cases that we are dealing with have we issued contempt notices, except for one or two applications that are pending.”
In response, Singh pointed out that the case of Shaheen Abdullah is still pending.
The Bench clarified,
“We are not issuing notice.”
The PIL, filed by Advocate on Record Vishal Arun Mishra, emphasized recent instances of controversial statements made by political figures. Notably, former minister Sajjan Singh Verma, during a speech on August 8, 2024, in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising akin to the protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, suggesting that public dissatisfaction with national policies could lead to attacks on government residences.
Additionally, Rakesh Tikait, the National Spokesperson for the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), while speaking in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, on August 21, 2024, referred to the farmers’ protests and implied that past demonstrations could escalate into violent insurrections, posing a further threat to public order.
Citing a persistent failure by authorities to manage the spread of inflammatory statements, the petitioners referred to Supreme Court rulings in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which called for immediate suo motu action under Sections 153A, 153B, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against speech that incites public unrest.
The petition argued that these directives were either neglected or inadequately enforced, advocating for a stricter approach to curb provocative rhetoric, regardless of the speaker’s political background, to uphold the secular nature of the state. It also stressed the importance of mandatory educational programs and orientation sessions for political representatives to raise awareness about the legal limitations on public speech.
The petitioners contended that such training would highlight the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech and expression, balancing this freedom with the need to maintain public order and national security.
The PIL stated,
“In light of the growing number of provocative statements that threaten the security of the State, it is essential to promote extensive training programs, along with seminars and conferences designed to educate representatives and members from all political parties, organizations, and associations involved in political activities. Such initiatives shall concentrate on fostering awareness regarding the consequences of statements that are detrimental to the interest and security of the State, highlighting their potential to provoke violence and social unrest. By educating public figures about the legal frameworks governing provocative public statements and their harmful impacts on national integrity, it is possible to cultivate more informed political groups that will likely lead to social order and public tranquility. Such training initiatives ought to foster discussions regarding the obligations associated with political participation, thus encouraging a culture of respect and tolerance.”
The petitioners urged the Court to implement proactive measures against those violating its previous directives, warning that unchecked inflammatory speeches could incite societal unrest and weaken the social fabric of the country.
Read Also: Supreme Court Fails to Hear Petitions on Hate Speech as Scheduled
They emphasized the need for equal legal treatment, pointing out the State’s decisive actions against civilians and journalists while contrasting this with leniency towards political figures who incite unrest without facing similar consequences.
The PIL asserted,
“It is imperative to mention that the State has a sacrosanct duty to safeguard its citizens from unruly elements and perpetrators of vigilantism, with utmost sincerity. The Central and State governments ought to take action to restrict and prevent the dissemination of any inflammatory remarks and/or ideologies put forth by reckless politicians and public figures that tend to provoke mob violence, undermine social harmony and national unity, or potentially threaten public order and the security of the State.”
The PIL requested the following:
- Direct respondents to establish rules, regulations, or guidelines to regulate and prevent provocative speech that jeopardizes the sovereignty and security of the State.
- Direct respondents to initiate appropriate action under relevant penal statutes against speakers and organizations engaging in activities that threaten the sovereignty and security of the State and endanger the unity and integrity of India.
- Ensure an independent, credible, and impartial investigation into instances of provocative public speeches that endanger state security, to be monitored by the Court.
- Issue appropriate directions for the commencement of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Initiate a mandatory training program for politicians and members of organizations engaged in political activities.
- Require an explanation and justification for statements regarding secession akin to those in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
- Request Rakesh Tikait to file an affidavit committing to refrain from addressing or participating in farmers’ protests.