The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to issue further directions to curb hate speech, holding that the existing statutory framework was adequate and that the creation of a new offence would fall within the legislative domain.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while dismissing a batch of contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the Court’s 2023 directions on hate speech regulation, held that the power to define criminal offences was exclusively with the legislature.
Constitutional courts could not compel either the Parliament or the State legislatures to enact laws, noted the Court, adding that judicial intervention was limited to the interpretation and enforcement of existing legal provisions. The Bench further observed that there was no legislative vacuum in the field of hate speech, adding that the issue pertained to enforcement deficits rather than the absence of law.
Referring to procedural remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench noted that the statutory scheme provided a complete mechanism for initiating criminal proceedings. It noted that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in cognisable offences was mandatory, as settled in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court ruled that in cases of police inaction, an aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police, invoke the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175 BNSS), or file a private complaint.
The Bench emphasised that a Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) CrPC (Section 175 BNSS) was supervisory in nature and had wide amplitude. It further clarified that prior sanction requirements operated at the stage of cognisance and did not restrict pre-cognisance steps such as FIR registration or investigation. It further ruled that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) did not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding provision under the BNSS.
While declining to issue additional directions, the Court acknowledged that hate speech and the dissemination of communal narratives have a direct bearing on constitutional values such as fraternity, dignity, and public order. It left it open to legislative authorities to examine whether further statutory amendments or policy interventions are necessary, including those proposed in the Law Commission of India’s 267th Report.
The Apex Court passed the order on a batch of petitions concerning alleged communal content circulated through broadcast media and digital platforms. These included controversies such as the ‘Corona Jihad’ narrative and the ‘UPSC Jihad’ programme aired by Sudarshan TV, as well as speeches delivered at religious gatherings described as Dharam Sansad events. Petitions were filed by individuals, including journalist Qurban Ali and S G Vombatkere, seeking judicial intervention against alleged hate speech and broader guidelines for regulation.
During the pendency of these matters, the Court had issued pan-India directions in 2023, mandating proactive action by State authorities, including suo motu registration of FIRs in cases involving speech that promoted enmity or insulted religious beliefs.
The post Supreme Court declines fresh directions on hate speech, terms existing legal framework adequate appeared first on India Legal.