Not inclined to either legislate or monitor every incident of hate speech: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday signalled it would not assume the role of a nationwide monitor on hate speech, stating that existing institutions and legal mechanisms are already empowered to address such complaints. The remarks were delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing an application alleging recent calls for the social and economic boycott of a particular community.

“We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this country. There are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They are already in place,” the bench said.

The court initially directed the applicant to take his grievance to the relevant high court. “How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country? You approach the authorities. Let them take action, otherwise go to the high court,” the bench told the lawyer representing the applicant.

The counsel said he had moved an application in a pending writ petition focused on hate speech and had placed additional examples before the court. “I have filed an application for directions, bringing some additional instances to the knowledge of the court of these calls for the economic boycott that has started,” he submitted. When the bench noted that such calls appeared to be made by individuals, the lawyer contended that “some public representatives are also issuing similar calls.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present during the hearing, said public interest must not be viewed through the lens of a single community. “There are severe hate speeches going on amongst all religions. I will supply those details to my friend. Let him add that and espouse that public cause on a pan-religion basis,” he said. Mehta added, “No one can be indulging in hate speech, that is my stand. But while complaining, a public-spirited person cannot be selective.”

The applicant’s counsel argued that authorities were failing to act. He referred to earlier directions issued by the apex court in the hate speech matter, asserting that the court had said police must take suo motu action where the State did not act, failing which contempt proceedings could follow. He urged that the solicitor general could bring the issue to the notice of the states to ensure appropriate steps.

The bench reiterated that remedies were available. “Whichever state you have a problem, you approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief,” it said. The judges added that high courts were equipped to deal with such issues when public interest was involved.

The applicant’s counsel pointed to an October 2022 Supreme Court order asking three states to act firmly against those responsible for hate speeches. He also referred to another application concerning a minister in Assam who had commented on the Bihar election and “saying Bihar has approved gobi farming.” He claimed the remark was an apparent reference to the 1989 Bhagalpur violence, during which members of the minority community were killed and buried in fields.

The bench scheduled all pending matters for hearing on December 9.