Court intervention against hate speech
text_fields
The Supreme Court has issued strict directions to all states and Union Territories to take suo motu action against hate speech cases without waiting for any formal complaint to be registered. This will surely be welcomed by all those who desire peace and the rule of law. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the one who makes the hate speech. A bench of justices K M Joseph and B V Nagaratna has extended the scope of its October 2022 order, which was applicable only to the Governments of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, to all states and Union Territories. The court has also warned that any laxity in taking action against hate speeches will be construed as contempt of court. While the court order is a relief, one cannot help but say that it is a pathetic situation where the court has to remind the government of its duty. The petitioner, Shaheen Abdullah, approached the court after some state governments were seen tacitly and inertly encouraging hate speeches that could overtly incite communal poison and lead to violence.
The apex court bench had even earlier criticised the government for not acting swiftly and remaining a mere spectator. For any person, self-respect is very important. And when it is constantly abused, it is the rule of law and unity that is jeopardized. A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India also made similar observations recently. Neither the Delhi Police nor the Uttarakhand Police took any action against Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke for his hate speech. The court had criticised the laxity while hearing a petition filed by activist Tushar Gandhi. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered only on May 4, 2022, five months after the hate speech was made on December 19, 2021. When the chargesheet was yet to be filed, Tushar Gandhi filed a contempt petition. It was during the hearings, that the Delhi Police informed that a chargesheet was filed on April 4. The court has taken note of the allegations that religion and community are the basis on which it is decided whether to register or not register the cases.
The primary duty of any government is to maintain peace and law and order. What does it mean if even that is done only when reminded by the court? It is a fact that this dereliction has led to a rise in hate speeches. There have been several instances where no legal action was taken against the perpetrators let alone getting them penalised. When hate speeches are encouraged with the government’s tacit support, the atmosphere is repeatedly loaded with more subtle and clear (but deadly as hate speech made directly) statements and hints. Even senior officials are involved in this. It is possible even for the Prime Minister to follow the social media accounts of those who have got used to hate speech. In that case, the court’s order to the police forces of the states seems to be inadequate. When politicians who govern the police themselves discriminate on the basis of community and religion, no directive is likely to be complied with for long without the court’s constant intervention. This is evident from the cases already being heard by the Supreme Court benches and the High Courts.
As the Supreme Court itself pointed out, it is a political, administrative and cultural problem. It is natural for the majoritarian culture to gain supremacy over others. It is the responsibility of different communities, especially the majority community, to ensure that their own culture is not highjacked and tainted by vicious groups. It is here that the court's observation becomes relevant that hate speeches will stop if politicians cease using religion for their vested interests. What makes the shocking hate speeches that the country recently witnessed more horrifying is the silence of the religious and political leadership responsible for curbing it. If the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Chief Ministers of different states speak out against hate speeches as and when they are made, that can check to a great extent the malady. The leadership of the respective religious groups can also play a constructive role in this regard. Unfortunately, many leaders seem to be setting an example by spreading more poison than guiding their followers. The intervention of the court is a remedy confined only to governance. Hence for a complete cure of the disease, religious and political leaders should come forward to play their role.
