The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speech, saying there were enough laws to deal with such crimes but there were lacunae in implementation.
It said it was not for courts to legislate on such subjects.
One of the petitioners had sought action against Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for his alleged anti-Muslim remarks during public events.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the verdict while dealing with a batch of PILs filed since 2020 during Covid-19 and certain applications seeking contempt action against authorities for non-implementation of the various directions issued earlier by the apex court in the Tehseen Poonawalla, Shakti Vahini and other cases. The directions included the prompt registration of FIRs against those delivering hate speeches.
The petitions were mostly filed against certain alleged inflammatory speeches made at Dharam Sansads in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and other places by Hindutva activists and alleged provocative speeches made by some Muslim politicians.
In 2023, the Supreme Court passed a directive to all states and Union Territories that the police should suo motu register FIRs for speeches promoting communal hatred and offending religious sentiments without awaiting a formal complaint. Thereafter, contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with the court’s directions.
However, on Wednesday, the bench declined to pass any fresh directions on the ground that the existing directives and laws were sufficient to deal with such hate crimes and it was for the executive and the legislature to take a call on their strict implementation.
“Creation of criminal offences lies squarely within the legislative domain and constitutional courts may interpret the law, but they cannot compel legislation. What manner to legislate remains in the domain of the legislature. The field of hate speech is not unoccupied. The concerns don’t arise from law but in implementation,” the bench said while pronouncing the judgment.
The court said the statutory mechanism under the BNSS provides a comprehensive way to put criminal law in motion and to ensure “no legislative vacuum exists”. While declining to issue directives, the bench observed that issues related to hate speech and rumour mongering directly affect fraternity and constitutional order.