It is an unfortunate truth that hate speeches have been normalised in India’s public and political discourses. So the Supreme Court’s observation, while responding to a public interest litigation seeking action against an alleged inflammatory comment made by the chief minister of Assam, that hate speeches have a wide political currency is correct. Yet, the highest court’s decision to dismiss the petition for singling out an individual or a particular political organisation merits examination. The petitioners had, incidentally, named leaders belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party only for their purported toxic rhetoric. The facts on the ground are revealing in this context. The rise of hate speech in the public square coincided with the electoral ascendancy of the BJP. In 2025, 1,318 verified in-person hate speech events targeting religious minorities across India were documented by the India Hate Lab across 21 states, one Union territory, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. This implied a rise of 13% in hate speeches compared to such incidents in 2024, and a 97% spike from the corresponding figure in 2023. Strikingly, the report also found that of the 1,318 events, 88% of hate speeches took place in BJP-ruled states. These findings are not an exception. Another report by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate had found a significant rise in such hateful speeches in 2024 — an election year — with leaders of the BJP bearing a disproportionate share of the culprits. The Supreme Court’s point on the narrow focus of the petitioners is well taken. But it is a fact that the BJP has a dubious record of polarisation. Moreover, many of the alleged perpetrators — the chief minister of Assam being one — are holders of high constitutional offices. Charges of mischievous partisanship on their part — these must be proved in a court of law — should be a matter of serious concern.
Hearteningly, the apex court has permitted the petitioners to present a modified plea. But the key point, as was made by one of the learned judges, pertains to the responsibility of India’s political leaders to foster the spirit of fraternity. The evidence is clear that a significant number of such political representatives, especially those belonging to India’s ruling regime, have willingly failed this test of fraternity. This failure has brought the republic’s pluralist societal framework under unprecedented strain. Such transgressions must be resisted and accountability demanded in the court of law and the court of the people.