SC says existing laws sufficient on hate speech, declines fresh directions

The Supreme Court has ruled that existing criminal laws are adequate to address hate speech, declining to issue fresh directions while leaving scope for legislative action

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that existing criminal statutes sufficiently cover acts amounting to hate speech, rejecting arguments that the law lacks provisions to address such offences.

 

Delivering judgment in a batch of petitions seeking directions to curb hate speech, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear that the creation of offences falls strictly within the legislature’s domain and cannot be undertaken by courts.

 

“The creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lies squarely within the legislative domain. The constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions,” the Court observed, adding that at most it can flag the need for reform to the executive or legislature.

 

 

Rejecting the plea that hate speech remains outside the scope of statutory law, the Bench said: “The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived. The existing framework of the substantive criminal law, including the provisions of the IPC (now BNS), and allied legislations, adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage to religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. The field is therefore not unoccupied.”

 

The Court underscored that the core concern raised by petitioners relates to weak enforcement rather than the absence of legal provisions. It noted that procedural safeguards already exist under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, including mechanisms for registration of FIRs in cognisable offences and recourse before magistrates if the police fail to act.

 

While declining to frame fresh guidelines, the Bench left the door open for legislative intervention.

 

“While we decline to issue directions sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that the issues relating to hate speeches and rumour mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order. It is open to the Union and the states to consider in their wisdom whether any further legislative measures are warranted in the light of evolving societal changes and challenges, or to bring suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission 267 report dated March 23, 2017,” the Court said.

 

The Court also disposed of contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance by police authorities with earlier directions on hate speech.

 

The proceedings stem from multiple petitions filed over the years, beginning in 2020 during the “Corona Jihad” campaign on social media and the controversial “UPSC Jihad” programme aired by Sudarshan TV, which had earlier been restrained by the Court.

 

Subsequent pleas were moved over alleged inflammatory speeches at “Dharam Sansad” events and religious gatherings, including petitions by individuals such as Qurban Ali and S G Vombatkere. A separate public interest litigation by Ashwini Upadhyaya had sought a dedicated legal framework on hate speech.

 

In 2023, the Court directed all states and Union Territories to register FIRs suo motu in cases involving speeches that incite communal hatred or offend religious sentiments, irrespective of whether a formal complaint is filed. Alleged non-compliance with these directions later led to contempt petitions.

 

Among the more recent developments was an application seeking removal of an AI-generated video allegedly circulated by a political party unit in Assam, portraying fears of demographic takeover following an electoral loss.

 

While reserving judgment earlier this year, the Bench had indicated that most matters would be closed, allowing parties to pursue other remedies. However, it has kept alive the case of Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, which concerns a 2021 alleged hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Noida, to monitor progress in the trial and related proceedings.