Hate Speeches Delivered By Political & Religious Leaders Bulldoze Constitutional Ethos, Warrant Stringent Peremptory Action: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that the same is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.The judgment began by referring to a shloka from Bhagwat Gita which states that whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects."The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society," the Court observed. The observations were made while the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.The Court was of the view that hate speeches incite violence and feelings of resentment against members of specific communities, thereby causing fear and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the members of those communities.It added that such speeches marginalizes individuals based on their membership in a group by using expressions that expose the group to hatred. "Hate speeches are almost invariably targeted towards a community to impart a psychological impact on their psyche, creating fear in the process. Hate speeches are the beginning point of attacks against the targeted community that can range from discrimination to ostracism, ghettoization, deportation, and, even to genocide," the Court added. Citing the example of exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley, the Court said:"The methodology is not restricted to any religion or community in specific. There have been and there continue to be instances of hate speeches in different parts of the country targeted against people of specific communities, based upon the demographic composition. There have even been instances of demographic shifts in the aftermath of such Hate/Inflammatory speeches, the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley is a prime example."Adding that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression with reasonable restrictions and that the same is not an absolute right, the Court said that such reasonable restrictions include public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. "Hate speeches not only cause defamation but also incite offences against a particular sect of religion of this nation," it said. The Court thus observed that the penal law provides for sufficient remedy to curb the menace of hate speeches while adding that the executive as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the already existing legal regime."Effective regulation of "hate speeches" at all levels is required and all the law enforcing agencies must ensure that the existing law is not rendered a dead letter. Enforcement of the aforesaid provisions is required being in consonance with the proposition "salus reipublicae suprema lex" (safety of the state is the supreme law)," it observed. On merits of the case, the Court observed that the ACMM had not entered into the merits of the case and had decided the complaint before it on the ground of jurisdiction, on the point that he lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on merits because of want of sanction from the Competent authority to prosecute the two named individuals.The Court was of the view that there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence."Section 156(3) unambiguously states that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order an investigation into a cognizable offence. However, the Magistrate cannot act as a mere 'Post Office' in forwarding such a complaint for investigation, meaning thereby that the direction by the Magistrate for investigation under S.156(3) should not be issued as a matter of routine or passed...

Hate Speeches Delivered By Political & Religious Leaders Bulldoze Constitutional Ethos, Warrant Stringent Peremptory Action: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags