Hate speech cannot be equated with a false claim or a wrong assertion: Supreme Court

The top court rejects PIL seeking action against inflammatory speeches by public figures, citing difference between hate speech and wrong assertions

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 14, 2024) said ‘hate speech’ is not the same as making a false claim or a wrong assertion.

The oral observation from a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna was made while dismissing a petition filed by an organisation,’Hindu Sena Samiti’, seeking framing of guidelines to prevent hate speech by political leaders.

The petition had cited recent comments by the political figures, including former Madhya Pradesh Minister Sajjan Singh Verma and Bharatiya Kisan Union spokesperson Rakesh Tikait, as instances where rhetoric had allegedly threatened public order.

In his remarks, Mr. Verma had allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising, drawing comparisons to the protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, while Mr. Tikait allegedly referenced the farmers’ protests in a manner that suggested the possibility of violent insurrection.

The petition called for the prevention of the “growing menace of delivery of provoking public speech jeopardising the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State.”

“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged references. Further, there is a difference between hate speech and wrong assertions... In case the petitioner has any grievance, they may raise the same in accordance with law,” the Bench said.

The Bench noted that a batch of petitions, titled Shaheen Abdullah versus Union of India, pertaining to the rising tide of hate speech in public domain was already pending in the apex court.

In October 2022, the apex court had said it was “tragic what we have reduced religion to” in the 21st century and a “climate of hate prevails in the country”, while directing police and authorities to suo motu register cases against hate speech offenders without waiting for someone to file formal complaints.

In 2018, the court had condemned hate crimes and held that it was the “sacrosanct duty” of the state to protect the lives of its citizens.

The Tehseen Poonawala judgment had seen the top court issue a slew of guidelines for States and the police to prevent, control, and deter mob violence and lynchings.

Published - November 14, 2024 04:44 pm IST