The Supreme Court of India (“Court“) adjudicated a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) that was filed by the Hindu Sena Samiti, on November 14, 2024. The petitioners raised concerns about inflammatory statements made by various political figures, alleging that such statements threatened public order and national security. The petition sought for the drafting and implementation of guidelines that restricted the freedom to make such inflammatory remarks or indulge in hate speech. The PIL was filed, under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. In the submissions made before the Court, the petitioners expressed concerns over what they termed as “provocative public speeches” that allegedly endangered state security and sovereignty. The contents of the petition allegedly highlighted the statements made by Mr. Sajjan Singh Verma in Indore on August 8, 2024 regarding potential public uprisings.
The petitioners sought for the introduction of guidelines that aimed to regulate and prevent provocative speeches. The proposed guidelines were to include inter alia (i) action against persons and organizations that make speeches and/or issue statements that threaten national security and sovereignty of the nation, (ii) conducting of mandatory training programs for persons affiliated with political organizations, and (iii) a procedure for the independent investigation of incidents involving provocative speeches made on public forums.
The petition also cited the rulings of the Court in the cases of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India cases, which mandated suo moto action against hate speech. These judgements directed various state governments to take suo moto action against crimes pertaining to hate speeches without waiting for formal complaints, irrespective of the religion of the alleged offender. Basis these judgements, the petitioners plead for the implementation of ‘proactive’ measures that prevented inflammatory speeches. The said ‘proactive’ measures were proposed to consist of (i) penal provisions; and (ii) the formation of an impartial, independent, and credible authority to inquire into incidents of provocative public speeches.
The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, opined that there is a crucial distinction between stating that hate speech and wrong assertions or false claims. The Court established a clear legal distinction between merely incorrect statements and inflammatory speech, observing that the latter is more specific in nature. The petition was held to lack a focused understanding of what constituted hate speech and/or inflammatory remarks. The Court dismissed the petition on these grounds, stating that the petitioners may raise any further grievances through appropriate legal channels specific grievances, rather than seeking relief under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Addressing the issue of creating a legal framework to combat hate speech, the Court emphasized that existing legal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were adequate to deal with hate speech crimes. There was no lacuna in the legal provisions that may suggest the need for any additional guidelines to be phrased.
The Court made an important distinction while dismissing this petition, emphasising that hate speech should not be confused with merely making wrong assertions or false claims. This ruling further clarified the position established by the aforementioned judgements.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese