The Supreme Court on Friday told the Centre and states to take instances of hate speech seriously, and observed that it was nothing short of a “menace” that if left unchecked, could become a monster.
Hearing a batch of cases highlighting inaction by states in acting against instances of hate speech made against Muslims and Christians, a bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said: “This is a complete menace and nothing short of it. We should all be careful about the seriousness of hate speech... We should not end up creating a Frankenstein(‘s monster) that will gobble (us) up.”
The court reminded states that any action against perpetrators of hate speech should be irrespective of religion as the crime committed is against society, regardless of who the speaker is. This was a reiteration of the order passed by the Court in the same case on October 21 last year while directing states to register suo moto complaints on hate speech.
While stating that free speech in the country should be protected, the court felt that this balance is often being misused by TV channels. “Media occupies a position of great strength. Any misuse by them impacts the whole nation. This freedom comes with responsibility,” the bench said.
The Centre represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj suggested there were enough checks and balances to which the bench replied, “What is the use if it is not applied in a manner that does not produce results. For so many years, there is no regulatory mechanism for television. It is a free for all.”
Wondering whether the time had come to deal with news anchors and channel heads with a heavy hand, the bench said, “In a live programme, the key lies with the anchor. If the anchor is not acting in a fair manner, there should be power to take off an anchor. How many times have you taken off anchors?”
Nataraj told the court that the Centre is contemplating a comprehensive law on the issue of hate crimes and regulation of such content online. “As a state we do not subscribe to hate crimes. It cannot take the colour of any religion.”
But the court replied, “The buck stops at you. What are you doing to control it (hate speech)? We don’t like governments to come in at all as it is a matter of free speech. But in certain areas, it affects harmony in the society.”
Advocate Nizam Pasha appearing for one of the petitioners pointed out that despite the Court’s direction of October 21 asking states to register suo moto complaints of hate speech, there has been no change on ground. He produced a speech by Sudershan TV editor Suresh Chavhanke at an event organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Maharashtra on December 12 spewing hate against Muslims and Christians.
Pasha moved an application seeking seek responses from Maharashtra and three other states of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Haryana where similar instances of hate speech and protests inciting violence were reported early this year. The plea said, “It is clear that the cases of hate speeches have been on the rise across the country...Strict action ought to be taken against the speakers and participants present at the aforementioned events and also against the authorities that failed in preventing such an event from happening.”
The cases before the Court also included previous instances of hate speech given in 2021 in Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh where the Court has already passed orders and directed states to file status reports.
A separate petition alleging inaction of the Delhi police to act against the perpetrators of the Delhi hate speech involving Chavhunke dating back to December 19, 2021 also came up for hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud. Noting the delay on part of the Delhi police to register the crime in May 2022, the bench, also comprising justice PS Narasimha asked, “Why do you (police) require five months to register FIR.” The comment came while hearing a contempt petition filed by Mahatma Gandhi’s great grandson Tushar Gandhi. The Court granted two weeks to the investigating officer of the case to produce details of persons arrested, status of probe and chargesheet.
Chavhanke’s lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared in the batch of cases with an application highlighting the conduct of the petitioners in projecting speeches made by Hindu leaders while ignoring communal speeches by Muslim leaders such as Zakir Naik, Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi and his brother and Telangana MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi made against Hindus. The Court allowed Jain to withdraw the application and file a fresh application showing their recent speeches as the ones cited in the application were termed by the Court as “stale”.
In one of the petitions, an instance that took place in Uttar Pradesh in July 2021 was highlighted where a Muslim man’s complaint alleging religious slur by a group of youth in Noida was not registered by the UP Police till date. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi told the Court that the state is expected to be sensitive to a citizen’s complaint. Instead, he added, “The attitude of the state is to show the victim is a liar.”
The state claimed this was a “media-driven case” as there was no religious slur, and insisted that it was a case of extortion. The Court directed the state to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing while observing, “Let this be a test case. Both the state and the petitioner cannot be correct.” The Court also allowed the application moved by Pasha and directed all states to respond to the steps taken by them pursuant to a 2018 judgment in the Tehseen Poonawala case by the top court directing preventive steps to be taken by states to curb instances of mob lynching.
The Uttarakhand government, represented by deputy advocate general Jatinder Kumar Sethi told the Court that the petitioners need not come to the top court as they have the remedy to approach the police as there is a mandate to register any cognizable crime.
The bench told Sethi, “It’s all very well to say this but look at what is happening,”referring to the recent instance in Delhi where a policeman escorting a culprit was stabbed to death in full public glare. “Fear is in everybody’s mind. Nobody wants to stick their neck out.”
Source Link
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments