The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that it will not step into the role of a lawmaker on the issue of hate speech, holding that the existing legal framework is adequate if implemented properly.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to pass additional directions sought in a batch of petitions, observing that the problem lies not in the absence of law but in its enforcement.
At the heart of the ruling is a firm reiteration of the separation of powers. The Court said that creating criminal offences is the exclusive domain of Parliament and state legislatures.
While courts can interpret laws and ensure that fundamental rights are protected, they cannot compel the government to enact new legislation. At best, they can point out gaps and suggest reforms.
The bench underlined that hate speech is already covered under existing provisions, and therefore, there is no legislative vacuum that requires judicial intervention.
‘Existing remedies are sufficient’
The Court placed significant emphasis on remedies already available under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
It reiterated that police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as settled in the landmark ruling of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
If the police fail to act, citizens have multiple options: approach the Superintendent of Police, move the magistrate under relevant provisions or file a private complaint.
The court also clarified that directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175 BNSS) does not amount to taking cognisance of the offence.
A key takeaway from the judgment is the Court’s view that enforcement is the real challenge. The legal system already provides a comprehensive mechanism to deal with hate speech, but its effectiveness depends on timely and proper action by authorities.
The bench noted that issues like hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect social harmony, dignity, and constitutional values such as fraternity. However, it stopped short of issuing fresh directions, instead placing responsibility on enforcement agencies.
A long legal battle
The case has its roots in petitions filed as far back as 2020. Early proceedings dealt with controversial narratives such as the so-called Corona Jihad campaign and the UPSC Jihad programme aired on Sudarshan TV. At that time, the Court had intervened to restrain further telecast.
also read
- Sheena Bora murder case: SC refuses to let Indrani Mukerjea travel abroad
- Supreme Court refuses to extend Pawan Khera's plea for transit bail over Rinikki Bhuyan passport row
- Pawan Khera denied relief again by Supreme Court: No interim protection from arrest until Tuesday
- Supreme Court invokes Article 142, clears path for revised West Bengal voter rolls
Over the years, the scope widened. Petitions began to address speeches made at religious gatherings, including events described as Dharam Sansads. Petitioners like journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere sought stronger action against alleged hate speeches.
In 2023, the Court had issued significant directions asking states and Union Territories to act proactively. Police were told to register FIRs even without formal complaints in cases involving hate speech. However, contempt petitions later alleged poor compliance with these directions.
Though it declined to frame new rules, the Court did not completely shut the door on reform. It urged legislative authorities to examine whether additional measures are needed in light of changing social realities. The bench also referred to the Law Commission’s 267th Report (2017), which had suggested amendments to better tackle hate speech.