Supreme Court: Take action against hate speeches without waiting for a complaint
Expressing its anguish over the hate speeches, describing them as “very disturbing” and wondering “what have we reduced to religion”, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the police chiefs of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand in interim directions—directed to “immediately”. Coercive action against criminals by registering criminal cases without waiting for formal complaints.
It warned the authorities that “any hesitation to act by this directive would be treated as contempt of court, and appropriate action would be taken against the erring officers.”
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy issued the directions on a petition by Shaheen Abdullah, a resident of Kozhikode in Kerala, on speeches made by the VHP’s Delhi unit and other Hindu organizations at a Viraat Hindu Sabha organized in the capital on October 10. was highlighted. , and other similar petitions are seeking action after hate speech against Muslims at certain Dharma Sansad events.
The bench sought to know what action was taken on hate speeches in Delhi, UP and Uttarakhand, in which BJP leader Parvesh Verma had recently called for a “complete boycott” without naming any community.
Before the bench pronounced its order, Justice Joseph said, “This is the 21st century. Where have we reached? What have we reduced to religion? Article 51A talks of scientific temper. It’s sad.”
In its order, the bench said, Respondents 2 to 4 (Delhi Police Commissioner and Director General of Police of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh) “will file a report as to what action has been taken in respect of such acts, which are subject to This writ petition is within their jurisdiction”.
The bench said they “shall ensure that whenever there is any speech or action which attracts offences like sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC, there is an automatic right to register a case even if there is no complaint.”: Action will be taken. Coming forward and taking action against criminals as per law.”
Section 153A of the IPC deals with promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, caste, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony; 153B speaks of accusations and allegations prejudicial to national integration); 295A means willful and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs; Section 505 deals with statements contributing to public mischief.
“Such action shall be taken, irrespective of religion, of the person giving a speech or committing such act, to preserve and protect the secular character of India as envisaged by the Preamble,” the bench said.
It also asked the respondents to “issue instructions to their subordinates” to take appropriate action at the earliest in law.
Issuing the notice, the bench said, “The complaint made in the immediate writ petition appears very serious. This is related to the growing atmosphere of hatred in the country.”
“This is due to an endless stream of what the petitioner describes as hate speeches made by various persons against the Muslim community… The petitioner’s complaint is one of frustration and anger emanating from the notion that the appropriate provisions have not provided for the punishment. Despite the law being available, there is inaction or complete inaction”.
It states, “The Constitution of India sees India as a secular nation and is the guiding principle enshrined in the fraternity preamble ensuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the country. The fraternity cannot exist unless The members of the community belonging to different religions or castes of the government should not be able to live in harmony.
Stating that “we feel that the court must protect fundamental rights and to protect and preserve constitutional values, especially the rule of law and the secular democratic character of the nation,” it said, “the matter was examined needed, and some sort of interim directive”.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, referred to the October 10 incident.
The bench asked whether any complaint had been registered. Sibal replied, “We have filed many complaints. This court or administration never takes action. Always status reports… We should not come to this court.” He said that such events are now being held daily.
The bench wanted to know whether he, as Law Minister, had proposed anything to stop such acts. Sibal said he did, but there was no consensus.
Referring to speeches at the programme, he said Verma had spoken of ‘boycott’ while another speaker had spoken of slitting his throat.
“What can we do? Silence is not an answer. Not from our side, not from the court,” Sibal said, urging the court to order a probe by the Special Investigation Team.
Justice Joseph asked whether Muslims were also giving hate speeches. Sibal replied that anyone who spoke hate speech should not be spared. The bench said that people from both sides are providing such lessons.
Referring to the statements mentioned in the petition, Justice Roy said they are “very disturbing” and “condemnable” as the country is religion-neutral. He also sought to know why only statements against one community are exposed and said the court could not be seen as biased.
