'Goli Maaro' Speech, 'Corona Jihad' Posts, 'UPSC Jihad' Show, Dharam Sansad : A Look At Hate Speech Cases Closed By Supreme Court

Rendering a long-awaited judgment, the Supreme Court recently closed a batch of petitions seeking reliefs against various alleged hate speech offences.

While it refused to issue a continuing mandamus for ensuring compliance with earlier directions issued relating to hate speeches/offences, the Court clarified that prior sanction is not required for a Magistrate to order registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed all the writ petitions seeking reliefs regarding hate speeches/offences and disposed of other special leave petitions and contempt petitions (alleging violation of the Court's order for suo motu FIR). Earlier, the Court had de-tagged from the batch the 2021 case of a Muslim cleric in Noida. In the judgment, it further ordered that 3 more cases remain pending to await the response of the respondent-authorities.

In this article, we look at the matters which were disposed of by the top Court vide its judgment in the hate speech batch of cases.

BJP leader Anurag Thakur's 'Goli Maaro' speech

In CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat's plea against alleged hate speeches by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma in the year 2020, the Court took a view that no cognizable offense for registration of an FIR was made out. It approved the High Court finding that the 2020 speeches of the BJP leaders were not targeted against specific communities and did not create any public disorder.

Brinda Karat's plea referred to various speeches made by the two politicians, including Anurag Thakur's speech at a rally in 2020 where he shouted the slogan "desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko". Reference was also made to another speech by Parvesh Verma (in 2020), while he was campaigning for BJP, and subsequently in an interview given to media.

The plea alleged that the speech threatened use of force to remove protestors who were protesting at Shaheen Bagh (in the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act) and to promote hatred and enmity against Muslim persons by portraying them as invaders who will enter houses and rape and kill people.

Having gone through the record, the Supreme Court did not find any ground to interfere with the High Court order on merits but found fault with its observation that prior sanction is required before a Magistrate can order registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. It categorically said that on viewing the material on record, including the alleged hate speeches, no cognizable offense was made out against the BJP leaders.

'Dharam Sansad' Events

The Supreme Court further dismissed a PIL filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash (former judge of Patna High Court) seeking a Special Investigation Team probe into the alleged anti-Muslim hate speeches made during the Dharam Sansad and Hindu Yuva Vahini meets at Haridwar and Delhi respectively in December 2021.

In these events, hate speeches were allegedly made by a group of people calling for the genocide of members of the Muslim community. The accused included - Yati Narsinghanand Giri, Premanand Maharaj, 'Sudarshan News' owner Suresh Chavhanke, Sadhvi Annapoorna alias Pooja Shakun Pandey and others.

Besides an SIT probe, the petitioners sought a direction for the respondent-authorities to comply with the directions issue din the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment to curb hate crimes. They also prayed that the Court define the contours of 'duty of care in investigations' or the tort of negligent investigations resulting in harm.

The Supreme Court however dismissed the writ petition, observing inter-alia that the statutory framework under CrPC/BNSS provides a comprehensive and layered mechanism to set the criminal law in motion. It noted that the petitioner's grievances were rooted not in the absence of a law, but the deficits in the consistent and effective enforcement of existing law. The same did not warrant judicial assumption of legislative functions, the Court said.

It further observed that the police is dutybound to register an FIR if a cognizable offense is made out and the law also provides for efficacious remedies in case of non-registration of FIR. An aggrieved person can approach the concerned Superintendent of Police and then the Magistrate, or proceed with a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Besides, constitutional courts have supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Court to pass directions of the nature sought.

Tablighi-Jamaat Meet: 'Corona Jihad', Islamophobic Twitter posts and biased media reports

The Supreme Court further dismissed two writ petitions filed in 2020 against the vilification of Muslims by communalization of the Tabligh-Jamaat meet at Markaz Nizamuddin. The petitioners had moved the court seeking a stop on the dissemination of fake and communally biased reports vilifying Muslims.

The petitions further sought action against persons who committed violent acts against Muslims, as well as, protection of the community members following reckless vilification by the media. Rejecting the petitions after 6 years, the Court found no reason to interfere.

Other than these, it also dismissed a case where the petitioner was aggrieved by Islamophobic posts on social media websites and sought action against the miscreants as well as Twitter. The petitioner had initially approached the Telangana High Court against the illegal trending of IslamicCoronavirusJihad, TablighiJamat etc. on Twitter. He further prayed for a direction to the Union to stop social media sites operating in India from carrying any Islamophobic posts or messages hurting members of the community.

The High Court however opined that his grievance against the trends on Twitter had worked itself out. On the second issue (direction to Centre), the High Court said that the petitioner could seek appropriate orders from the Supreme Court. Regarding the third issue, the Union was asked to consider the averments in the petition and take steps in accordance with law, if deemed expedient.

This High Court order was appealed before the Supreme Court, which recently dismissed the special leave petition. The top Court noted that the petitioner's grievances had been adequately addressed by the High Court. Even if some concerns remained, no further adjudication was warranted in view of the observations in the judgment.

'UPSC Jihad': Sudarshan News' show on entry of Muslims into civil services

The Supreme Court dismissed another writ petition filed against the show 'Bindas Bol', hosted by Suresh Chavhanke, the Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan News, for communalizing the entry of Muslims into civil services. At the centre of the controversy was Zakat Foundation, which was accused by Sudarshan News of deriving foreign funds from terror-linked organizations during its show having tagline "UPSC Jihad".

In September 2020, the Supreme Court, through an interim order, restrained the channel from telecasting the remaining episodes of the show after making a prima facie observation that its object was to "vilify the Muslim community". A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud (ex-CJI) remarked that there was an "insidious attempt to malign a community" and stated that a constitutional court cannot allow the vilification of any community in a pluralistic society.

Now, the writ petition, which, besides action against Sudarshan News' programme, sought a restraint on media and social media networks from reporting any news with religious/communal angle, has been dismissed. The Court did not find any ground to interfere and pass directions of the nature sought.

BJP leader Nitesh Rane's 'inflammatory' speech in Malwani

The Supreme Court also dismissed a writ petition filed in 2024 by social activist Jameel Mohammad Merchant seeking an FIR against BJP leader Nitesh Rane (son of former Union and Chief Minister Narayan Rane) over his speech during an event organized by the Sakal Hindu Samaj in Malwani, Mumbai, Maharashtra on 03.03.2024. In the said event, Rane apparently made inflammatory remarks against the Muslim community and advocated for violence.

He allegedly made repeated hate speeches against Muslims in 2024. In this backdrop, the plea sought a direction restraining him from making any inflammatory speech against the minority community in Malwani, Malad (West), as well as, from conducting or leading rallies which could disturb the peace in the area.

The Supreme Court however dismissed the writ petition, observing inter-alia that the statutory framework under CrPC/BNSS provides a comprehensive and layered mechanism to set the criminal law in motion.

The Court said that the police is dutybound to register an FIR if a cognizable offense is made out and the law also provides for efficacious remedies in case of non-registration of FIR. An aggrieved person can approach the concerned Superintendent of Police and then the Magistrate, or proceed with a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Besides, constitutional courts have supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Court to interfere and pass directions of the nature sought.

Other cases

Besides other writ petitions, the Supreme Court also closed two contempt petitions, noting from the authorities' response that FIRs had been registered over the alleged incidents. Two other contempt petitions, assailing non-registration of suo motu FIR, were closed with a finding that no case for invoking contempt jurisdiction was made out as complaints against the alleged incidents had not been made to the authorities.

The Court opined that where the petitioners had not even approached the authorities or placed material before them, it would be inappropriate to infer disobedience of the Supreme Court's directions and/or hesitation on the authorities' part.