Yesterday, the Supreme Court of India held that that police authoroties need to be sensitised about hate speech crimes in India.

In the said mattter, the court was dealing with an application regard to the protests being organised in Delhi and the national capital region (NCR) in the aftermath of the communal violence that broke out at Nuh district in Haryana.

In the previous hearing, the bench directes Centre and states to ensure no violence or hate speech takes places at the venues of these protest meetings. the court also sought the assistance of the Centre Government in this regard and posted a bunch of petitions seeking to curb hate speech after two weeks.

The matter was heard before the division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said, “A solution must be found. Everybody should not be coming to court on these matters.”

Advocate Nizam Pasha, counsel submit an application, in which he mentioned that despite the court’s order, hate speeches against Muslims were made at the protest rallies in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.

 “One aspect of the matter is the definition of hate speech - what amounts to hate speech and what is free speech -, which itself is complex as it is not well-defined . But the bigger problem is of execution and implementation.”

“Some sensitisation has to be done among the police force. On that we would like the assistance of Centre and states. There are problem areas. After all, it is in the interest of everybody to have peace.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre mentioned that the Supreme Court in 2018 gave directions in the case of Tehseen Poonawala v Union of India case where hate speech is clarified.

“If there is violation of law, remedy is to file FIR. It has now become a practice to approach the Supreme Court by filing a contempt petition and getting an advance ruling to ensure no offence is committed.”

Further, Mehta mentioned that most applications will suggest “selective people coming to court for selective prayers”. 

Senior advocate CU Singh, said, “This is not an adversarial petition. You have speeches being made justifying genocide of persons in the name of religion.”

The bench agreed to take up these issues after a period of two weeks and said, “This issue requires consideration. We have something in mind. Meanwhile, you may also sit together and find a solution.”