Take suo motu action on hate speech: SC to state police chiefs
The Supreme Court has taken a serious view of the proliferation of hate speech in the country.
There have been numerous incidents of hate speech, primarily in Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, targeted against a community. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Shaheen Abdullah who had sought an independent probe into incidents of hate speech and hate crimes against Muslims in these three states.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Abdullah, told the Court, that irrespective of the existence of penal provisions and courts asking the police to take preventive action on hate speech, no action had been taken. He said he was forced to approach the court after an October 9 event in Delhi where hate speeches against Muslims were made.
The Apex Court directed the police chiefs of these three states to immediately take suo motu action against people, irrespective of religion, who deliver hate speech. The court directed that the police chiefs need not wait for a formal complaint.
“We make it clear that any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of this court and appropriate action will be taken against the erring officers. We further make it clear that such action will be taken irrespective of the religion that the maker of the speech or the persons, who commit such act belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the preamble (of Constitution), is preserved and protected,” a Bench of justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy warned.
The Bench also directed the police chiefs of the three states to file an action taken report regarding incidents of hate speech within their jurisdiction. “This is the 21st century. What have we reduced God to? Article 51 says we should have a scientific temper: Where have we reached? In the name of religion, it’s tragic,” the Bench observed.
On Sibal’s submission, Justice Roy said, “These statements are very disturbing for a country which professes to be a democracy and religion neutral.”
When Justice Joseph asked if such speeches were made by the Muslims too, Sibal replied, “Anybody who makes such speeches should not be spared.”
The Bench said, “The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle... There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony.”
The Bench observed, “We feel that this court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also preserve the constitutional values and the secular democratic character of the nation and in particular, the rule of law.”