Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing in Hate Speech Matter to August

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday adjourned to August, the hearing in a batch of pleas seeking action with respect to various instances of hate crimes, including hate speech, across the country.Advocate Nizam Pasha appeared on behalf of a petitioner who has filed a contempt petition against the state of Maharashtra for allegedly failing to act against instances of hate speech. He told a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Aravind Kumar that in the counter-affidavit submitted by the government, the copies of first information reports (FIR) had not been supplied despite being enumerated in the document. "To our knowledge, some of the dates are incorrect. According to our information, the FIRs are for some other date and some other incidents.""You file a counter. How do I respond to your oral assertions?" Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta exclaimed. He added, "A petitioner staying in Delhi is orally disputing some event in Mumbai..."Pasha clarified that their only intention was to request for copies of the relevant FIRs to be supplied. The law officer replied, "Whatever is to be supplied, we will supply. You cannot sit in appeal over our decision." The bench pronounced, "Copies of the FIR mentioned in the counter-affidavit to be made available to the petitioner."Apart from this, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), told the bench that the human rights organisation had submitted an affidavit. "In the last days, we should not be troubling Your Lordships," Solicitor-General protested, referring to the impending retirement of Justice Joseph who will demit office during the vacation (June 16)."It's important," Parikh persisted, saying, "The number of incidents of hate speech are still continuing in the state of Maharashtra. We have put that in our affidavit.""File FIRs or go to the magistrate. The Supreme Court is not a magistrate's court," the law officer responded sharply. Mehta also claimed that incidents of hate speech had "neither increased, nor decreased". He added:"Petitioners are selectively bringing cases before the Supreme Court. Is it that states, other than Maharashtra, are peaceful, or that there is no hate speech by other communities? This is selective litigation."Parikh continued, "Your Lordships had wanted us to give suggestions, so we have included that in our affidavit." However, the law office interjected again, saying, "This court did not want your suggestions. You wanted to give them. The Supreme Court does not want suggestions, it issues directions.""I'll keep quiet then," Parikh responded. However, Justice Joseph urged him to go on, saying, "If everyone keeps quiet, the court will stop functioning." The senior counsel then told the bench that not only were instances of hate speech continuing, but pursuant to FIRs lodged by the police, no action had also been taken. "Your Lordships, let them go to the magistrate. There is a system in place," the solicitor-general replied."Do not worry. All of that will be considered," Justice Joseph told Parikh. Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj also chimed in, saying that the earlier directions issued by the court with respect to suo motu action against hate speech had the characteristic of a 'continuing mandamus'. "These would have to be retained and made absolute. These orders would have to be followed up," he added."I have only one submission, which I will make when the matter is heard. This is not a court of a magistrate. There is a law in place. If there is any violation, there is a system in place," Solicitor-General Mehta said."We will leave it at that," said Justice Joseph. Finally, the bench decided to adjourn the hearing till the first week of August. Background Last year in October, a bench headed by Justice KM Joseph directed the Governments of NCT of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to take suo motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any complaint. Failure to take action against incidents of hate speech - irrespective of the religion of the maker of such speech – would be contempt of court, the bench warned. While issuing a set of interim directions to curb hate speech, the Supreme Court observed, “There cannot be fraternity unless different religious communities are available to live in harmony.” Subsequently, several incidents of hate speech were brought to the notice of the top court. In February this year, one Shaheen Abdullah approached the court seeking a ban on an impending meeting of the Sakal Hindu Samaj, a coalition of several right-wing Hindu nationalist outfits. The petitioner cited alleged instances of anti-Muslim rhetoric used by the right-wing group during a previous rally. The bench adjourned the hearing after recording an undertaking made by the State of Maharashtra that if permission is granted for the Sakal Hindu Samaj to hold its proposed meeting in Mumbai, it would be subject to the condition that no one would make any...

Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing in Hate Speech Matter to August

Awstika Das

Tags