India's Supreme Court made a significant declaration on Tuesday, stating it will not engage in framing new laws or monitoring individual instances of hate speech across the country. The court emphasized that existing legislative frameworks, police authorities, and high courts are adequately equipped to handle such matters.
Judicial Bench's Firm Stance
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered these observations while hearing an application that alleged calls for the social and economic boycott of a specific community. The bench firmly stated, "We are not legislating in the garb of this petition," making it clear that the court would not overstep its constitutional boundaries.
The judges expressed their reluctance to monitor what they described as "every small incident that takes place in various pockets of the country." They pointed to the established hierarchy of judicial and administrative remedies, noting that high courts, police stations, and legislative measures are already functioning to address such concerns.
Petitioner's Concerns and Government's Response
The petitioner's counsel argued that their application was filed within an ongoing writ petition concerning hate speech and aimed to bring additional recent instances to the court's attention. The lawyer specifically highlighted that certain public representatives were involved in making these controversial statements, while authorities were allegedly failing to take action despite previous Supreme Court directives.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, presented a crucial perspective during the proceedings. He asserted that public interest cannot be "selective" or "limited to a particular religion." Mehta remarked, "Severe hate speech occurs across all religions. I will share those details with my friend so that the cause can be taken up on a pan-religion basis."
Exhausting Legal Remedies
The Supreme Court maintained its position that petitioners must first exhaust existing legal remedies before approaching the highest court. The bench advised the petitioner's counsel to initially approach local authorities, and if no satisfactory action is taken, then move the appropriate high court for relief.
The court specifically mentioned its October 2022 order that directed three states to take strict action against hate speech. However, the bench reiterated that high courts are fully capable of addressing such issues when genuine public interest is involved.
The petitioner also referenced an application concerning a remark made by an Assam minister about Bihar elections and "Bihar approving gobi farming," which was interpreted as an indirect reference to the 1989 Bhagalpur violence. The bench has scheduled all related matters for further hearing on December 9.
