State Is Impotent And Powerless, Why Can’t States Develop Mechanism To Stop Hate Speech? Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, repeated its concerns over failure of authorities to take prompt action against instances of hate speech.“State is impotent, state is powerless; it does not act in time. Why do we have a State at all if it is remaining silent?”, Justice KM Joseph aired his anguish during the hearing.A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna was considering a petition seeking contempt action against authorities in the State of Maharashtra over their alleged failure to act against hate-speeches during rallies. Earlier, the bench had passed a slew of directions with respect to the processions undertaken by Sakal Hindu Samaj. Before that, the bench had passed a direction that authorities should take suo motu action against hate speech, without waiting for any complaint, regardless of the religion of the accused. Yesterday, Advocate, Mr. Nizam Pasha, appearing for the petitioner, had apprised the Court that the contempt petition has been filed based on a news article published in the the Indian Express, which mentioned that 50 rallies spurring hate has taken place in Maharashtra in the last 4 months.Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. SV Raju, appearing for the State, requested the Bench to grant him time to seek definite instructions in the present application. The Bench asked him to file a written response in this regard. Accordingly, the matter has been stood over to 28th April.Court room exchangeWhen the matter was taken, Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, informed the Bench that he has filed an application highlighting certain other instances of hate speech. He submitted - “It is something very very significant that I want to point out. There are beheading calls, slogans have been raised. But no action has been taken. I would like to point out certain instances that have taken place pursuant to those slogans.”Counsel representing Sakal Hindu Samaj objected to the maintainability of the main writ petition. He argued that though allegations have been raised against his client, it has not been made party to the proceedings. He contended that, in light of the same, the writ petition should be dismissed. It was submitted that the Samaj has a right to hold processions in accordance with their own faith, which cannot be challenged by someone who has another religious belief. “My right to hold processions in accordance with my belief, can it be challenged by someone from some other religion? That too, without making me a party; without hearing me?”In this regard, reliance was placed on one of the issues framed by the 9-Judge Bench that was considering the Sabarimala review order. “Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?”Justice Joseph was not inclined to accept the submission as the issues culled out by the 9-Judge Bench have no relevance to hate speech.Bench highlights the importance of rule of law, brotherhood and toleranceAcknowledging the right of the Hindu Samaj to hold the procession, Justice Nagarathna added that the manner in which the procession was conducted is being assailed in the present writ petition. Reflecting on the importance of rule of law, brotherhood and tolerance, Justice Joseph said, “The minorities also have rights under the Constitution recognised by the founding fathers… What are you trying to say now?...Suppose everyday you sit in court & everyone in the vicinity says something bad about you...Most important thing for a man is dignity; not wealth, health. If it is being demolished on a regular basis...Some statements are made like,“Go to Pakistan”. They are those persons who had actually chosen this country.They are like our brothers & sisters…If we want to become a superpower, the first thing we need is rule of law...It speaks about brotherhood.”The Bench allowed the intervention application filed by the Sakal Hindu Samaj. Mr. Pasha assured the Bench that his application in the contempt petition is not religion specific. Arguing on the importance of curbing hate speech he quoted Adama Dieng, UN Special Adviser on Genocide Prevention, “The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers. It started with hate speech.”Apprehending Mr. Pasha’s application would open the floodgate of such contempt petitions being filed against each instance of hate speech before the Supreme Court, Justice Nagarathna stated, “But where are we going is the question. We had orators like Nehru, Vajpayee. People from rural areas used to come to listen to them. Now, people who have no stuff are making these speeches. Where are we going....But where are we going is that question. We had orators like Nehru, Vaipayee. People from other States, surrounding areas, rural areas used to come and hear their speeches. Unfortunately people who have no stuff, fringe elements on all slides are making such speeches…Now we are going to take up contempt after...

State Is Impotent And Powerless, Why Can’t States Develop Mechanism To Stop Hate Speech? Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags