Today, On 15th November, Supreme Court clarified it is not legislating or monitoring every small incident, stressing that hate speech complaints must be handled by existing authorities. The Bench noted that high courts and police stations already possess powers to act promptly.
The Supreme Court indicated that it does not intend to legislate or oversee every incident of hate speech throughout the country, given that legislative measures, police stations, and high courts are already established.
This statement was made by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta during a hearing related to allegations of calls for the economic and social boycott of a specific community.
The bench remarked,
“We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this country. There are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They are already in place.”
Initially, the court suggested that the applicant approach the relevant high court regarding his concerns.
The bench advised the applicant’s counsel,
“How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country? You approach the authorities. Let them take action, otherwise go to the high court,”
The lawyer pointed out that they had submitted an application within a pending writ petition that addresses the issue of hate speech.
He stated,
“I have filed an application for directions, bringing some additional instances to the knowledge of the court of these calls for the economic boycott that has started,”
When the bench noted that such calls had originated from specific individuals, the lawyer responded that some public representatives were also making similar statements.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that public interest must not be biased towards any single religion, saying,
“There are severe hate speeches going on amongst all religions. I will supply those details to my friend (the applicant), let him add that and espouse that public cause on a pan-religion basis.”
The applicant’s counsel expressed concern that authorities were not taking action and reminded the court of a previous ruling that called for suo-motu action by the police if the state failed to respond, with potential contempt proceedings in the offing. He suggested that the solicitor general inform the states to take appropriate measures against hate speech.
Mehta added,
“No one can be indulging in hate speech that is my stand. But while complaining, a public-spirited person cannot be selective,”
The bench reiterated to the applicant’s counsel that there are existing mechanisms and legal recourse available.
Noting that high courts would address any matters involving public interest, it advised,
“Whichever state you have a problem, you approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief,”
The applicant’s counsel mentioned an October 2022 order from the Supreme Court instructing three states to take firm action against hate speech.
He also referenced another application concerning a minister in Assam, who allegedly commented on the Bihar election by saying that Bihar had approved cauliflower farming.
The counsel suggested this remark was a veiled reference to the 1989 Bhagalpur violence, which resulted in the deaths of several members of a minority community.
The bench concluded that all related matters would be heard on December 9.