On Friday, October 21, 2022, the Supreme Court directed Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand police to act on incidents of hate speech without taking the religion of the perpetrators into consideration. The Apex Court also directed the police authorities to take action in the case of hate speech even when there is no complaint forthwith and register a case under Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with the law.

"This is the 21st century! Where have we reached in the name of religion?" said the bench comprising of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy which was considering a PIL asking for an urgent intervention to address the growing threat of targeting and intimidating India's Muslim population.

"Article 51A says we should develop a scientific temper. What have we achieved in the name of religion? It is tragic,"  the Court said further.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, stated that despite numerous complaints, neither the administration nor the Supreme Court has taken any action other than requesting progress reports and said that "Silence certainly is not an answer. Not on our part, not on the court's part. "

The petitioner stated that between December 17 and December 19, 2021, hate nine leaders delivered speeches consisting of outright appeals for the destruction of Muslims at two distinct rallies held in Delhi (by the Hindu Yuva Vahini) and Haridwar (by Yati Narsinghanand). Events of a similar nature took place in Allahabad on January 29, 2022, at the Talkatora Stadium in Delhi on May 5, and in Badarpur (Haryana), on September 4.

Sr. Advocate Sibal said "A programme was conducted on 30.09.2022 on Aaj Tak, a leading news channel, claiming that Muslim men disguise themselves as Hindus and enter the garba pandal to promote love jihad. The shocking claim was made by the host on his prime time show. He then went on to show some ground reports that they had collected for the research, which turned out to be an interview with the leader of Bajrang Dal."

He further added that, "No action seems to be forthcoming against the speakers or the parties that organise such events where genocidal and hateful speeches are delivered." In most cases, minimal action of merely registering FIRs, and that too under lesser offences, is the only thing that is done by the authorities, which seems to be more of a formality than any genuine initiation of the criminal machinery.

Noting the facts, Justice Roy stated that "statements are undoubtedly unsettling", particularly for a democratic and secular nation. However, he said that only statements disparaging one community had been submitted to the court. The judge stated that the Apex Court cannot be viewed as a body that singles out individuals.

"These kinds of statements by anyone is condemnable," Justice Roy added.

 As an interim measure, the Court issued the following directions:-

"Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Respondent No.3-Director General of Police Uttarakhand and Respondent No.4- Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh will file a report as to what action has been taken in regard to such acts as are the subject matter of this writ petition within their jurisdiction. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 will therefore issue direction(s) to their subordinates so that appropriate action in law will be taken at the earliest.

We make it clear that any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of this Court and appropriate action will be taken against the erring officers.

We further make it clear that such action will be taken irrespective of the religion that the maker of the speech or the person who commit such act belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the Preamble, is preserved and protected."

Case Details:-

Writ Petition (C) No. 940/2022

Shaheen Abdulla v. UoI and Ors.

 Read the complete order on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/33359/33359_2022_5_42_39196_Order_21-Oct-2022.pdf