Supreme Court Rejects New Hate Speech Law

Context

The Supreme Court has cleared up the fact that India does not require new legislation to address the issue of hate speech. Rather, it has emphasised that the problem is the inconsistent implementation of existing laws.

Key Highlights

• The Supreme Court held that the existing laws are adequate to tackle hate speech.
• It said that although dealing with hate speech is an important issue, it is not a problem of the absence of law.
• But rather, their lax implementation.

Understanding the Issue

• India has long grappled with the issue of hate speech, particularly at a time when offensive statements can be spread far and wide via social media. However, unlike other jurisdictions, there’s no specific law in India defining hate speech.
• This prompted arguments that a new law was needed. The petitioners also cited the Law Commission’s 2017 recommendations, which included provisions that would criminalise the incitement to hatred.

What Did the Supreme Court Say?

• The Court decisively dispensed with the argument that there is a law deficiency.
• It pointed out that India’s criminal law already covers some of the speech that has the potential to cause communal disharmony, to incite hatred, or to outrage religious sensibilities.
• An oft-used expression goes: “We have laws; we need them to be better enforced”. In layman’s terms, the Court said: “We do have laws; the concern is their better implementation”.

Legal Framework to Address Hate Speech

• India already has comprehensive laws to deal with hate speech:
  • Section 153A: Prohibits the promotion of enmity between groups.
  • Section 153B: Promotes feelings of enmity between various groups.
  • Section 295A: Penalises acts that cause deliberate and malicious outrage of religious feelings.
  • Section 298: Penalises words that outrage religious sentiments.
  • Section 505: Deals with publications that may cause public nuisance or incite hatred.
• And there are laws like the Representation of the People Act, the Protection of Civil Rights Act, and the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act to protect against defamation.

Why the Court Didn’t Set New Guidelines

• The petitioners wanted the Court to intervene as it had in the case of Vishaka on sexual harassment.
• But there was a crucial difference, the Court pointed out. As there was no law in the case of Vishaka. But with hate speech, there is an elaborate framework.
• Parliament is responsible for law-making, and Courts cannot make new laws when there is already one there.

Protocols, Not New Law

• The Court recognised the real problem: the laws against hate speech are not being enforced properly.
  • FIRs can be delayed or failed to be lodged.
  • Police responses may be poor or discriminatory.
  • Politics can make the law biased.
• But this, said the Court, does not amount to judicial law-making. They call instead for greater administrative and institutional responsibility.

Constitutional Significance

• This case upholds two key constitutional principles:
  • Separation of Powers: Parliament laws the courts interpret.
  • Self-Restraint: Courts should not play the role of the legislator.
• The Court also weighed freedom of speech against public peace, dignity and harmony.

A Broader Message

• The Court connected the battle against hate speech to the Indian civilisations’ message of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – the world is one family.
• It also reminded the citizens that constitutional values like equality, fraternity and dignity are impossible in a climate of hate and divisiveness.
• In fact, no legislation can end hatred. This can only be done by a society rooted in constitutional morality and respect.

Way Forward

• Ongoing and adequate recording and investigation of hate speech.
• Provide police with training on crimes of community and hate speech.
• Create guidelines for dealing with online hate speech.
• Provide constitutional education to schools.
• Foster proper public debate, online and offline.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court ruling is clear: India has no shortage of hate speech laws. It just needs better enforcement.
• In refusing to do its own law-making, the Court has confirmed the need for institutions to stick to their roles, as it has shown that governments need to do their own work.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains PYQ

Q. What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. (2014)

Download as PDF