Police Failure To Suo Motu Register FIR Against Hate Speech Not Automatically Contempt : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the failure of the police to suo motu register FIR with regard to hate speech incidents would not automatically become contempt of the Court's orders, and that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked at the instance of a party who has not approached the police at the first instance.

"In cases where the petitioner has not even approached the authorities or placed the relevant material before them, it would be wholly inappropriate to infer disobedience or “hesitation” on the part of the authorities. In the absence of such foundational facts, the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked", the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations in its recent judgment in the batch of cases concerning hate speech. Observing that willful disobedience by police authorities could not be discerned when no complaint had been made or material placed before them, it disposed of two contempt petitions.

In the contempt petitions, the petitioners had contended that the Court's orders dated 21.10.2022 and 28.04.2023 required police authorities to suo motu register FIR against hate speech incidents. As the respondent-authorities failed to act suo motu, they were guilty of contempt.

The bench however disagreed, finding the submission "overly broad and untenable". It said that the earlier orders were passed to remind the authorities of their statutory duties and to ensure prompt action in appropriate cases. Nonetheless, the element of "hesitation" or failure to act despite knowledge of a cognizable offense was a sine qua non for invoking contempt.

"A common contention raised in some of the contempt petitions is that the respondent-authorities were under an obligation to register FIRs suo motu, and failure to do so would automatically amount to contempt of the orders dated 21st October, 2022 and 28th April, 2023. We find this submission to be overly broad and untenable. The aforesaid directions were issued to remind the authorities of their statutory obligations and to ensure prompt action in appropriate cases. The element of “hesitation” or failure to act despite knowledge of a cognizable offence is a sine qua non for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

In cases where the petitioner has not even approached the authorities or placed the relevant material before them, it would be wholly inappropriate to infer disobedience or “hesitation” on the part of the authorities. In the absence of such foundational facts, the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked."

While it declined to issue general directions, pointing out that creation of offences was within the exclusive domain of the legislature, the bench also noted that there was no legislative vacuum with regard to hate speech, and the existing legal framework adequately addressed such crimes. Whether further amendments are needed was left to the wisdom of the Union and the States.

Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Click here to read the judgment