'Can Draw Attention, Can't Compel Legislature': Supreme Court On Hate-Speech Legal Framework
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said it was well settled that formulation of policy and the choice of legislative response fall squarely within the domain of the legislature.
· www.ndtv.comNew Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the court may draw attention to the need for legislative action, but it cannot compel the legislature to undertake the law-making function.
Observing that no "legislative vacuum" exists, warranting intervention, as the existing framework adequately addresses the issue of hate speech, the court said that it cannot direct the legislature or the government to enact a particular law or introduce a Bill before the legislature within a stipulated time frame.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said it was well settled that formulation of policy and the choice of legislative response fall squarely within the domain of the legislature.
"At best, the court may draw the attention of the legislature to an emerging concern and recommend that appropriate measures be considered. Whether, and in what manner, the legislature chooses to act upon such observations remains entirely within its legislative discretion," the bench said.
The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions, including those seeking a direction to the Centre to examine the existing legal framework governing hate speech and rumour-mongering, and to take such steps as may be necessary to effectively address and regulate it by way of legislation.
"While the court may draw attention to the need for legislative action, it cannot compel the legislature to undertake the law-making function," the bench said.
It said the issues and instances brought to its notice in these petitions indicate that the difficulty does not arise from the absence of substantive law governing the field.
"On the contrary, the existing legal framework contains provisions capable of addressing the conduct in question. The concern, rather, appears to stem from selective, delayed or inconsistent application of the procedural mechanisms entrusted with enforcing these provisions," it said.
The bench said the problem, therefore, was not one of legislative vacuum but of inadequate or uneven invocation of the legal processes designed to give effect to the law.
It said that, in view of the layered statutory and constitutional remedies available within the existing legal framework, it cannot be contended that the law is either silent or deficient in addressing grievances arising from conduct that disturbs public order or fosters inter-group hostility.
"Any deficiency lies not in the absence of law, but in its application and enforcement in specific cases. The function of this court is not to create new offences or construct parallel regulatory regimes but to ensure faithful implementation of the remedies already envisaged under law," it said.
It said that where the field stands fully occupied by legislation, supported by adequate procedural safeguards, the exercise of judicial power must necessarily be guided by the discipline of constitutional restraint.
The bench said that where the statute itself provides a complete and efficacious remedial framework, it would be inappropriate for the court to transgress the limits imposed by the doctrine of separation of powers by assuming functions that are primarily vested in the executive.
"It is only upon a demonstrated failure in the discharge of statutory obligations that constitutional courts may justifiably step in, in exercise of their power of judicial review," it said.
The bench said it was necessary to reiterate that the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) occupies a central position in our constitutional democracy.
"The marketplace of ideas, the freedom to question authority and the right to dissent are indispensable to a vibrant and open society. At the same time, this freedom is not absolute," it said.
The bench said the Constitution itself contemplates reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, dignity and harmony.
"Speech that is designed to inflame passions, promote hatred between communities or disturb public tranquillity does not strengthen democracy; it corrodes the foundational values of fraternity, dignity and equality," it said.
"Hate speech, in this sense, is not merely an exercise of free expression but a distortion of it, one that undermines the constitutional promise of an inclusive and cohesive society by fostering hostility and discrimination against identifiable groups," the bench said.
It dismissed several pleas and also closed the separate contempt petitions filed against the authorities of some states for their alleged failure to comply with the court's directions to take action against those involved in hate speeches.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
Follow us:
Supreme Court