Existing Laws Sufficient To Tackle Hate Speech: SC

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived.”
The verdict came on a batch of petitions seeking action against those involved in hate speech and the creation of a mechanism to deal with such incidents.
The court, however, said it would be open to the Centre and competent legislative authorities to consider whether further legislative or policy measures were required in light of evolving societal challenges, or to bring in suitable amendments as suggested in the Law Commission’s 267th report (March 2017).
“While we decline to issue the directions sought, 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,” Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.
The court said the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lie squarely within the legislative domain. It added that the constitutional scheme, based on the doctrine of separation of powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand criminal liability through judicial directions.
“The precedents of this court consistently affirm that while constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation,” the Bench said.
It noted that the existing framework of substantive criminal law, including provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and allied laws, adequately covers acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. “The field is, therefore, not unoccupied,” it said.
The court added that the statutory framework under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion. It reiterated that police are duty-bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence, and remedies exist in cases of non-registration.
The apex court dismissed the petitions and closed related contempt pleas filed against certain States over alleged non-compliance with earlier directions on action against hate speech.
The court had reserved its verdict on January 20 and indicated it would dispose of most pending hate speech petitions filed since 2021, in which it had earlier directed police to register FIRs suo motu.
On April 28, 2023, the court had expanded the scope of its 2022 order, directing all states and Union Territories to register cases against those making hate speeches, irrespective of whether a formal complaint was filed. It had termed hate speech a “serious offence” capable of affecting the secular fabric of the country.
Earlier, in 2022, the court had directed Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to promptly register criminal cases against offenders without waiting for complaints, warning that any delay would invite contempt action.
The directions were issued on petitions seeking action against those delivering hate speeches, and were later sought to be implemented across all States and Union Territories.