Supreme Court refuses fresh directions on hate speech, says existing laws sufficient
Supreme Court refuses fresh directions on hate speech, says existing laws sufficient
M.U.H
29/04/202621
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that existing legal provisions are sufficient and that the issue does not stem from a lack of law but from implementation, as reported by Bar and Bench.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the creation of criminal offences lies squarely within the legislative domain, and constitutional courts may interpret law but cannot compel legislation. The Court also noted that the field of hate speech is not unoccupied and that existing statutory mechanisms are adequate to deal with such cases.
It further said that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) already provides a comprehensive framework to set criminal law in motion and that no legislative vacuum exists. The Bench added that magistrates also have wide supervisory powers under the existing legal structure, and clarified that sanction requirements operate at the stage of cognisance and not at the stage of initiating proceedings.
Reiterating the limits of judicial power, the Court said, that while constitutional courts may interpret law and issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation. At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of the Parliament and the state legislatures.
Referring to remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and BNSS, the Court said the legal framework already ensures effective recourse in cases involving hate speech, as reported by Bar and Bench. It noted that police are bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence, as settled in the Lalita Kumari judgment. In cases of non-registration, an aggrieved person can approach senior police officers under Section 154(3) CrPC or the corresponding provision under BNSS, and thereafter approach a magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench also clarified that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or its corresponding provision under BNSS.
The report further said that while declining to pass further directions, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, it said that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly impact fraternity, dignity and constitutional order. “We deem it appropriate to observe that issues relating to hate speech and rumour mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order,” the Bench observed.
The Court, however, left it to the legislature to consider whether additional legal or policy measures are required, including possible amendments suggested in the Law Commission’s 267th Report of 2017.
The judgment was delivered in a batch of petitions traced to incidents from 2020 onwards, including allegations over communal content circulated through broadcast media and social platforms, as reported by Bar and Bench. These included references to narratives such as “Corona Jihad” and a Sudarshan TV programme titled “UPSC Jihad,” which had earlier been restrained by the Court.
Subsequently, petitions were also filed regarding alleged hate speeches at gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events. Among the petitioners were journalist Qurban Ali and Major General (retd.) SG Vombatkere, who sought broader safeguards and legislative intervention against hate speech.
In 2023, the Supreme Court had directed all states and Union Territories to act suo motu against hate speech cases and register FIRs without waiting for complaints, later, contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with those directions.
