The Supreme Court heard a batch of hate speech PILs, flagging police inaction, selective FIR registration and the role of media amplification. The Court sought compliance details from States and granted time to file brief notes before reserving orders.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India heard a significant batch of public interest litigations (PILs) seeking strict action against hate speech and hate crimes. The cases highlight the persistent failure of police and states to enforce existing laws, despite repeated judicial directions.
The matter is being heard by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Issues Raised in Court
Selective Enforcement of Law
Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing in multiple petitions including contempt pleas, argued that the problem is not the absence of law, but selective enforcement.
He said:
- FIRs are either not registered or registered under incorrect sections.
- Law enforcement is hesitant to act against powerful individuals.
- Even when FIRs are registered, arrests are rarely made.
Non-Compliance with Court Directions
The Supreme Court had earlier directed states and Union Territories to suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases without waiting for formal complaints.
However, the bench noted continued reluctance by police agencies to act.
Hate Speech Leads to Hate Crimes
Pasha highlighted that hate speech often escalates into hate crimes, especially when perpetrators feel protected by political power.
Sanction Requirement is Misused
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal argued that the police refused to register an FIR, claiming that a sanction was required.
However, he clarified that a sanction is required only at the cognizance stage, not during FIR registration.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde highlighted the growing role of media in spreading hate narratives:
“Something starts as loose talk in a bazaar. Then it spills onto social media. From there, it explodes into mass media.”
He pointed out how derogatory terms like “UPSC Jihad” and “COVID Jihad” have been used to incite communal hatred, despite previous judgments like Tehseen Poonawalla and Amish Devgan.
Court’s Directions
The bench reserved its order and directed all parties to submit brief notes within two weeks explaining their arguments and suggestions. The Court stated:
“Whatever the issue is, submit in your note.”
The court stated that the matter would be closed today except for case 12.7, which was listed for 3rd February.
All connected matters were closed, except one pending case from Uttar Pradesh, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., which will be heard later.
Case Title:
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 943/2021
READ LIVE COVERAGE
