Observing that the “there cannot be fraternity unless different religious communities are available to live in harmony”, the Supreme Court on Friday issued a set of interim directions in a plea to curb hate speeches in the country.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy directed the Governments of NCT of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to file a report before the Court regarding the actions taken on the hate speech crimes which happened within their jurisdiction.

Importantly, the Court directed that these Governments should take suo motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any complaint. Cases should be suo motu registered and the offenders should be proceeded against in accordance with law. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court, the Court warned.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing a petition seeking urgent intervention to stop the “growing menace of targeting a and terrorizing the Muslim Community in India”.

Noting that the complaint raised that the authorities are not taking action against hate crimes was serious, the bench issued notice on the petition. The bench said that the complaint of the petitioner relates to the “prevailing climate of hate in the country” and total inaction of the authorities.

“The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the country are guiding principles enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of the community drawn from different religions or castes are able to live in harmony”, the bench observed in the order.

The petitioner voiced the concern that even after the directions of the Supreme Court, no action has been taken and that the transgressions have only increased.

Taking note of this concern, the Court observed in the order :

“We feel the court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also protect and preserve the constitutional values in particular the rule of law and the secular democratic character of the nation”.

Directions issued :

1. Respondents 2 to 4(Govts of Delhi, UP & Uttarakhand) will file a report as to what action has been taken in regards to acts as are the subject matter of this writ petition within their jurisdiction.

2. Respondents 2 to 4 shall ensure that immediately, as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC etc, without any complaint being filed suo motu action be taken to register cases and proceed against the offenders in accordance with these direction will be viewed as contempt of court and appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officers.

3. Respondents 2 to 4 will issue directions to the subordinates so that appropriate action can be taken at the earliest. We further make it clear that such action be taken irrespective of the religion of the maker of the speech, so that the secular character of Bharat as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved. 

Court room exchange

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner Shaheen Abdulla, told the bench that BJP leader Parvesh Verma indulged in hate speech by calling for economic boycott. “We have filed many complaints. This Court or administration never takes action except seeking status reports.These people are participating in events on daily basis”, Sibal submitted.

The bench however expressed doubts regarding the prayer to invoke UAPA with respect to such offence. Sibal replied that the prayer that is pressed the one to constitute Special Investigation Team to investigate the hates peech crimes which took place at Dharam sansad events and political meetings at different parts of the country.

“Are Muslims also making hate speech?”, Justice Joseph asked.

No one who makes hate speeches should be spared, Sibal replied.

“Article 51A says we should develop a scientific temper. And where have we reached in the name of religion? It is tragic”, Justice Joseph exclaimed at this juncture. Justice Roy, referring to the statements mentioned in the petition, said that they are “very disturbing”, especially considering the fact that our country is a democracy and is religion neutral. But he asked whether the statements against one particular community are alone highlighted.

For read more click here.










The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.