New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued strong comments on hate speech on Wednesday, saying that it will end the very moment when politics and religions are separated, and politicians can stop using religion in politics, PTI reported.
The court called hate speeches a "vicious circle" and said that utterings regarding the same were being issued by fringe elements. People should refrain from such actions, the court said.
A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna praised the speeches of former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and said that people used to gather even in remote areas to hear their speeches.
The court wondered how many people courts could initiate contempt actions and said that why the people of India cannot take a pledge to not vilify other citizens or communities.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out a derogatory speech made in Kerala by a man against a particular community and questioned that petitioner Shaheen Abdullah had selectively pointed out the incidents of hate speeches in the country, this triggered sharp exchanges between the court and Mehta.
He also pointed out a statement made by a DMK party leader and asked why has the petitioner's counsel not made him and those states party in the contempt petition.
The bench referred to those speeches and said, "every action has an equal reaction" and emphasised, "We are following the Constitution and orders in every case are bricks in the structure of the rule of law.
We are hearing the contempt petition because states are not taking action in time. This is because the state has become impotent and powerless and does not act in time. Why should we have a state at all if it is silent?"
Mehta then said, "Can't say that about any state, but Centre is not. The Centre has banned PFI. Please issue notice to the state of Kerala so that they can respond to this." As the court asked Mehta to continue with his submissions, he said, "Please do not do this. This will have wider ramifications. Why are we shying away from looking at the clip? Why can't the court allow me to play the video clip of the speeches? Why Kerala can't be issued notice and made a party to the petition? Let us not be selective. I am trying to show the clip, which is in the public domain. This court could have taken suo motu cognisance of these speeches."
The bench replied, "Let us not make this a drama. This is legal proceedings," and added, "There is a method to see the video clip. This applies to all equally. If you (Mehta) want, you can include it in your submission." The hearing of the contempt petition saw some strong observations from the court in, which it said, "Hate speeches are like a vicious circle. One person will make it, and then another will make it. When our Constitution was founded, there were no such speeches. Now there are cracks coming up in the idea of fraternity. There has to be some restraint. Some sought of mechanism needs to be developed by the state so that we can curb this kind of statement." Justice Nagarathna said.