Supreme Court Reserves Order On Hate Speech Pleas, Signals Closure Of Most Cases
Supreme Court Reserves Order On Hate Speech Pleas, Signals Closure Of Most Cases
M.U.H
20/01/202621
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on a batch of petitions highlighting concerns over hate speech and the alleged failure of authorities to effectively enforce existing regulatory mechanisms, while indicating that most of the matters may be closed with liberty to pursue remedies under law. The top court, however, decided to continue examining one petition linked to an alleged hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Uttar Pradesh’s Noida in 2021.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed all parties to submit brief written submissions before final orders are passed. During the hearing, the Justice Nath-led Bench observed that, except for one matter requiring further scrutiny, the remaining petitions could be disposed of, as adequate statutory remedies were already available to address the grievances raised.
The Bench clarified that it would continue to hear the petition related to the alleged 2021 hate crime in Noida to assess the status of the trial and the steps taken by investigating agencies thereafter. The court said continued monitoring was necessary to ensure that the legal process had progressed appropriately and that earlier directions were being complied with in letter and spirit.
The batch of petitions, filed from 2020 onwards, arose against the backdrop of a series of alleged hate speech incidents across digital platforms and public forums. These included the spread of the ‘Corona Jihad’ narrative on social media during the Covid-19 pandemic, a controversial television programme titled ‘UPSC Jihad’, and provocative speeches delivered at religious congregations such as Dharam Sansads. The petitioners contended that such instances reflected a systemic failure to curb communal rhetoric despite the existence of legal provisions.
In 2023, the Supreme Court had directed all states and Union Territories to register FIRs suo motu in cases of communal hate speech, even in the absence of formal complaints. The present proceedings examined the extent of compliance with those directions and whether additional judicial guidelines were necessary to address recurring instances of hate speech.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Nizam Pasha argued that the core issue was not the absence of laws but the reluctance of enforcement agencies to act, particularly when alleged offenders were politically influential or linked to ruling establishments. He submitted that many hate speech events were publicly advertised in advance and could have been prevented through timely administrative intervention, as had occurred following earlier Supreme Court orders.
Pasha also referred to an application seeking the takedown of an AI-generated video allegedly circulated by a political party’s Assam unit. He contended that there was a direct correlation between the spread of hate speech and the occurrence of subsequent hate crimes, underscoring the need for prompt and effective enforcement.
Senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, appearing for Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, submitted that apart from general instances of hate speech, there was an emerging trend of targeting religious personalities. He pointed out that police authorities often declined to register FIRs in such cases on the ground that prior sanction was required, which, according to him, created procedural hurdles and delayed justice.
On behalf of the Centre, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju informed the Bench that there had been substantial compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. He stated that FIRs had been registered in the majority of cases cited in contempt petitions and maintained that the existing legal framework was sufficient to address the issue.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde highlighted the role of social and mainstream media in amplifying provocative content due to commercial incentives. Referring to previous apex court rulings, he questioned whether institutional mechanisms could be evolved to make the dissemination of hate speech economically unviable.
Representing the Election Commission of India, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu submitted that the poll panel already had guidelines and enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with hate speech during elections and remained open to strengthening them if required.
After hearing all sides, the Justice Nath-led Bench asked parties to file concise written notes and reserved its order on the broader issue of whether additional guidelines or mechanisms were needed to curb hate speech, while indicating that existing remedies under law would continue to apply.
