The Supreme Court has held that public figures, individuals and organisations have a collective duty to desist from delivering hate speeches to ensure "constitutional democracy" in a country shaped by the core Vedic values of “vasudhaiva kutumbakam" (the world is one family).
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while declining to entertain a batch of petitions seeking, among other things, contempt proceedings and direction to the Centre to formulate suitable laws to deal with the rising incidents of "hate crimes in the country".
Writing the judgment, Justice Nath said the existing laws were sufficient and the problem lay in the non-implementation of the statutory provisions.
"Hate speech is thus not merely a deviation from acceptable discourse; it is fundamentally antithetical to the constitutional value of fraternity and strikes at the moral fabric of our Republic. It also runs counter to the deeper civilisational ethos of India... The philosophical underpinning of this ethos finds expression in the ancient maxim of ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam’, the idea that the entire world is one family.. In constitutional terms, it resonates with the principle of fraternity, which calls upon every citizen to recognise the shared humanity and equal dignity of all others,” Justice Nath said.
He said hate speeches "undermined the constitutional promise of an inclusive and cohesive society by fostering hostility and discrimination against identifiable groups".
"It must, therefore, be borne in mind that the preservation of constitutional order is not the responsibility of the State alone. In a constitutional democracy, public discourse carries with it a corresponding duty of restraint and responsibility. Individuals, public figures, and institutions alike must remain mindful that words have consequences, particularly in a society as diverse as ours,” he added.
The court said the existing statutory framework contained adequate provisions to address acts that promote enmity, hatred or disturb public order.
"The grievance projected before us pertains not to any legislative vacuum, but to issues of enforcement," the bench said.