Hate speech already covered by law, no need for new directions: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 29 April, held that the existing criminal law framework adequately addresses hate speech, observing that there is no “legislative vacuum” warranting judicial intervention.

“The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived,” a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said while delivering its verdict on a batch of petitions.

The court added that it would be open to the Centre and competent legislative authorities to consider, in their wisdom, whether further legislative or policy measures are required in light of evolving societal challenges, including possible amendments suggested in the 267th report of the Law Commission of India (March 2017).

Declining to issue the directions sought, the bench observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly impact fraternity, dignity, and the constitutional order.

The Court reiterated that the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments fall squarely within the legislative domain. Under the constitutional scheme and the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary cannot create new offences or expand criminal liability through directions.

“While constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation,” the bench said.

It further noted that existing provisions under the Indian Penal Code and allied laws already address acts promoting enmity, outraging religious sentiments, or disturbing public tranquility. “The field is, therefore, not unoccupied,” the Court said.

On procedure, the bench pointed out that the framework under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, including the mandatory registration of FIRs in cognisable offences and remedies in case of non-registration.

The detailed judgment is awaited. The Court had reserved its verdict on January 20.

(With agency inputs)