The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking guidelines to curb hate speech and to take action against those behind such incidents [Hindu Sena Samiti and anr vs Union of India and Ors].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjiv Kumar noted that the top court is already seized of a batch of petitions concerning hate speech and hate crime cases. It, therefore, declined to entertain another petition on this issue.
"We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged utterances over a long period of time. Further, the offence of hate speech is specific and cannot be equated with wrong assertions or false claims. In case the petitioner has any specific grievance, it may raise the same in accordance with law, and we make no comments either way in this regard," the Court said, in its order.
The PIL petition was filed by Hindu Sena Samiti. Among other prayers, it called for directions for action by the Central government against those making provocative public speeches through independent investigation.
A batch of petitions seeking directions to curb hate speech in India is already pending before the Court, which has issued several directives over the course of various hearings.
In April 2023, the Court directed the Police across all States and Union Territories to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without looking at the religion of the offenders.
It made it clear that any non-compliance of these directions would invite proceedings for contempt of court.
In March 2023, the top court lamented the fall in standards of political discourse in the country, noting that the country was witnessing hate speeches from all camps, leading to a vicious cycle of action and reaction.
Before this, in July 2022, the Court directed the Union Home Ministry to prepare a detailed chart outlining if States are complying with the general directions issued by it towards curbing hate speech in judgments such as in the case of Shakti Vahini and Tehseen Poonawalla.
In September that year, the apex court had taken a very dim view of the functioning of mainstream television news channels in the country, stating that they often give space for hate speech and then escape without any sanctions.
The Court has also frowned upon the failure of the National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) in tackling such misconduct, adding that television channels in India now create divisions in society since they are driven by agendas and compete to sensationalise news.