The Supreme Court’s sensible remarks highlighting the urgency for segregating politics and religion came as a whiff of fresh air amid the threatening scenario of hate speeches prevailing in the country, which is getting gloomier with each passing day. The top court scathingly pointed out that incidents of hate speeches are exacerbating because “the State is impotent, State is powerless, State doesn’t act in time.” The bench of Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagarathna was hearing a plea filed by Kerala-based journalist Shaheen Abdullah seeking contempt proceedings against Maharashtra Police for its failure to act on the court’s direction of restraining inflammatory speeches at rallies organised by particular Hindu outfits. Notably, the apex court had pre-emptively directed the state government on February 3 to make arrests, if needed, under Section 151 of the IPC to prevent hate speeches at a rally by Sakal Hindu Samaj — an entity with a history of spilling communal vitriol against Muslims. Though the Supreme Court’s remarks present some hope, the scope of improvement on the ground appears fragile. The counter-arguments presented by the Solicitor General of India reek of bias which, in effect, explains the lack of proactiveness shown by the State in this regard. Citing a child’s video clip in which he says “Hindus and Christians should prepare for final rites”, the Solicitor General questioned the role of the Supreme Court itself by asking why it did not take suo motu cognisance of the matter. However justified it may seem, the argument is problematic. Being a representative of the Union Government, can the Solicitor General be expected to argue on behalf of, or against, any particular community? Certainly not. The State must not hold any prejudice in dealing with matters having a communal angle. One is also prompted to ask why is the consideration of religion even necessary? Ideally, the State should, without any prejudice and bias, act sternly on each particular case, irrespective of the community to which the culprit belongs. In case of inaction in any part of the country, the State has the option to take legal and procedural actions. It is a matter of ridicule if the State believes in fostering one set of hate mongers to counter another set. If that be the case, it reflects just two things: one, the arrogance of being in power; and two, the heavily flawed notion of ‘undoing historical injustices’ — promoted by some of the well-known right-wing ideologues of their time. Neither of the two augurs well for the state of Indian democracy, society and polity. The problem does not lie with any of the religious communities in India. Hate is a human attribute that has practically nothing to do with religion. As the court rightly pointed out, the real problem lies in the ‘vicious circle’ of hate. When the Solicitor General tried to find one end of the problem by pinpointing the instances of vitriol spilled by a kid and a politician in the South, he perhaps failed to comprehend that there could be no end to a circle. The real issue highlighted before the court was the increasing instances of hate speech against the minority community, Muslims to be specific. It has to be re-emphasised that religion has nothing to do with the sentiment of hope. The question of hate perpetrated by selected members of the majority community against the members of the minority community has emerged because of political triggers. It has come up because of the prevalent perception that the ruling dispensation favours a particular community. And this perception is not based on any frivolous ground. Refuting the Solicitor General’s argument that hate has nothing to do with politics, the court rightly pointed out that “it has everything to do with politics”. The court added that the moment the State initiates action to segregate religion and politics, all this will stop. If read carefully, the judgement touches upon some of the most basic tenets of the Indian Constitution. The court floated the idea that ‘fraternity’ among the countrymen and ‘dignity’ of the individual stand at risk due to the incidents of communally driven hate speeches. The terms ‘fraternity’ and ‘dignity’ are two of the highlighted features of the Preamble to the Indian Constitution. Compromise with the two will imperil the sanctity of the Constitution. The State must shed prejudices and undertake the onerous responsibility of safeguarding the Constitutional ethos and social peace of Indian society.