Supreme Court of India refused fresh directions on hate speech, citing adequate laws. Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stressed issue lies in enforcement, not legislative gaps.
The Supreme Court declined to issue further nationwide directions to curb hate speech. It held that the country already has adequate legal provisions to address the issue, and that the problem lies in implementation rather than a lack of law.
A Bench headed by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that creating criminal offences falls within the legislative sphere. The Court noted that constitutional courts can interpret the law, but they cannot require Parliament or legislatures to enact new legislation. It also remarked that the domain of hate speech is not legally unaddressed, and that existing statutory tools are sufficient to handle such cases.
The Court further stated that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) already provides a complete framework for triggering criminal action, and that there is no “legislative vacuum.” The Bench also clarified that magistrates possess broad supervisory powers under the current structure, and that the requirement of sanction operates at the stage of cognizance, not at the stage of initiating proceedings.
Reiterating the boundaries of judicial authority, the Court said that while constitutional courts may interpret law and issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation.
Adding that the decision on whether and how to legislate rests exclusively with Parliament and the state legislatures, the Bench noted,
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform,”
ALSO READ: Not Legislating Or Monitoring Every Small Incident: Supreme Court On Hate Speech
Referring to remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and BNSS, the Court said the legal framework already provides effective recourse in hate speech matters. It pointed out that police are required to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, following the principles laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It further explained that in cases of non-registration, an aggrieved person may approach senior police officers under Section 154(3) CrPC or the relevant corresponding provision under BNSS, and thereafter approach a magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench also clarified that ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC (or the corresponding provision under BNSS).
While refusing additional directions, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It said,
“We deem it appropriate to observe that issues relating to hate speech and rumour mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order,”
The Court nevertheless left it to the legislature to decide whether additional legal or policy measures are necessary, including possible amendments suggested in the Law Commission’s 267th Report of 2017.
The ruling came in a batch of petitions linked to incidents dating from 2020 onwards, involving alleged communal content spread through broadcast media and social platforms, according to Bar and Bench. The petitions included references to narratives such as “Corona Jihad” and a Sudarshan TV programme titled “UPSC Jihad,” which had previously been restrained by the Court.
Later, petitions were also filed concerning alleged hate speeches at events described as “Dharam Sansad” gatherings. Among the petitioners were journalist Qurban Ali and Major General (retd.) SG Vombatkere, who sought broader safeguards and legislative intervention against hate speech.
In 2023, the Supreme Court had directed all states and Union Territories to act suo motu against hate speech cases and register FIRs without waiting for complaints. Subsequently, contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with those directions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE