Supreme Court to close hate speech pleas, keeps Noida assault case pending

Supreme Court moves to close long-pending hate speech petitions but keeps Noida cleric assault case alive to monitor trial and state action

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would bring closure to a batch of petitions raising concerns over hate speech, while keeping one case pending to monitor the progress of trial proceedings arising from an alleged hate crime in Uttar Pradesh.

 

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta indicated that all matters before it would be disposed of, with liberty reserved for parties to pursue remedies available in law. The court, however, decided to retain one petition relating to a 2021 incident in Noida involving the alleged assault of a Muslim cleric, to assess the status of the chargesheet, trial, and allied actions taken by the authorities. 

The petitions, most of which date back to 2020, were triggered by allegations of communal vilification during the Covid-19 pandemic, including the “Corona Jihad” narrative on social media and the telecast of the controversial “UPSC Jihad” programme. The court had, that year, intervened to restrain the broadcast of the programme.

 

Subsequent petitions were filed over alleged hate speeches at religious congregations and “Dharam Sansad” events, while some public interest litigations sought a comprehensive legal framework to deal with hate speech.

 

In 2023, the Supreme Court had directed all states and Union Territories to ensure that police register FIRs suo motu against speeches promoting communal hatred or outraging religious sentiments, without waiting for formal complaints. Contempt petitions were later filed alleging that these directions were not being implemented in letter or spirit.

 

Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Nizam Pasha argued that the issue was not a lack of legal provisions, but systemic reluctance to act against offenders, particularly where they were politically connected. He submitted that hate speech events were often publicly announced in advance, yet preventive steps were rarely taken.

 

According to him, repeated FIRs against the same individuals across states had failed to translate into effective prosecution, enabling a cycle of recurring offences. He also flagged concerns over an AI-generated video allegedly circulated by a political party unit, contending that hate speech frequently translated into real-world violence.

 

Senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, submitted that her case raised a distinct legal question on whether prior sanction was required even at the stage of registering an FIR against public servants for hate speech. He argued that sanction is relevant only at the stage of cognisance, and not for investigation, noting that the issue was pending consideration before a larger Bench. The court asked him to place a brief note on record.

 

Senior advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, pointed to what he described as a growing pattern of targeting religious figures, with police routinely declining to register complaints on the erroneous ground of sanction. Advocate Amit Pai, appearing for a political party, cited instances where FIRs were not registered despite allegations of casteist remarks by public officials, which he said demonstrated non-compliance with the court’s earlier directions.

 

Senior advocate Sanjay Parekh, for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, recalled that the court had earlier indicated it would draw from the principles laid down in its mob lynching jurisprudence, while recognising that hate speech required tailored safeguards.

 

On behalf of the Union, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju maintained that the directions had been substantially complied with, stating that FIRs had been registered in the majority of incidents cited in a contempt plea, while others did not disclose any offence.

 

Counsel for the News Broadcasters and Digital Association sought a hearing for media bodies, pointing out that industry guidelines on hate speech were already in place. Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, submitted that the ECI had its own enforcement mechanisms and was open to strengthening them if required.

 

In the Noida assault case, counsel for the petitioner contended that the attack was motivated by religious identity and should not be viewed merely as a law-and-order issue, but as one implicating constitutional values of equality and dignity. The State of Uttar Pradesh countered that a chargesheet had been filed, trial was underway, and departmental action had been taken against erring officials. The Bench said it would continue to monitor this case.

 

The amicus curiae, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, observed that both social media and mainstream media tended to amplify hate because it generated engagement and viewership. He questioned whether mechanisms could be devised to make the dissemination of hate speech commercially unattractive, referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions on hate speech and communal offences. After hearing all sides, the Bench asked the parties to submit brief written notes before it proceeds to pass final orders.