Venomous spill

In response to a petition filed by Advocate Harpreet Mansukhani, the Supreme Court of India agreed on Monday that "hate speeches are sullying the atmosphere in the country and need to be stopped". The apex court, however, emphasized on the need for a "factual background" to the case and suggested the petitioner to "concentrate on immediate instances." One such immediate instance came just a day before the Supreme Court heard Mansukhani's petition. At a congregation held in Ramlila Maidan on Sunday, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders spilled unchecked venom against the Muslim community. The congregation was organized by VHP to protest against the murder of a 25-year-old boy. The boy was stabbed to death in Sunder Nagri out of "and old animosity," as per the police. Based on family witnesses, suspects have also been arrested. Just because the victim happened to belong to Hindu community, and the suspects are Muslims, it was enough reason for hatemongers to spew and spill the venom. Before the law could take its due course, they found it fit to come out with their own verdict. Can a parallel justice system be acceptable in a country that runs on sanctimony of laws? Certainly not. It is a matter of serious retrospection as to where these elements draw their power from! The Indian constitution doesn't provide it for sure. Whatever be the sources, they must be unconstitutional. Justifying the event's name, Aakrosh (rage) Sabha, hate-loaded calls were made — from that of beheading Muslims to taking up guns and lathis against them. One of the speakers was disgracefully blunt, saying "don't just cut their fingers, cut their hands and, if necessary, behead them." There was another who openly threatened to take the law in hand, warning, "commissioner sir, don't complain later when something happens." Needless to point out that this is not the first such incident. Hatemongering of such tone and tenor have lately become more common. One wonders how in a country like India, where the rule of law is held supreme, such law-thrashing demeanors have been escaping the legal net, largely. While taking stringent action on case-to-case basis is one requirement, it is also pertinent to find the agency that backs such acts of violence. The agency, it appears, is of political nature. The answer can be sought in Mansukhani's petition itself. The petitioner explicitly called out "governmental inaction" to be a causal factor behind hate speech incidents. Despite repeated interventions by the Supreme Court, very little progress has been made in this direction. She classified hate speech as a "profitable" business that is weaponized to "win the majority Hindu votes, to grab power at all posts, to commit genocide and make India a Hindu Rashtra before 2024 elections." This argument may not completely be out of place. What else explains the level of impunity provided to perpetrators of such horrendous acts? Political inaction by the government against such hate speeches amounts to an approval of sorts. The indifference in favor of the stronger may simply amount to complicity. The urgency to take strict action against such criminal acts is more today than ever before. As the nation inches closer to the 2024 assembly elections, hate speeches and resultant violence will likely gain more traction. It is the right time to make appropriate interventions in order to avoid untoward scenarios in the future. Laws have been in place for long but they are not working. Since the hate speeches seem to draw power from politics, the solution, too, will have to be political in nature. The petition by Mansukhani is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to discharge its due duties. Mansukhani should consider taking assistance of amicus curiae and take her initiation to a conclusive end. The clock is ticking fast! The petitioner very rightly pointed out that "Every time a hate speech is given, it is like an arrow which never returns." The time perhaps has come to prevent these irreparable damages.