‘Can’t compel law-making’: SC dismisses petitions seeking new hate speech guidelines
The Supreme Court refused to frame new hate speech guidelines, ruling that existing laws are adequate and the issue lies in implementation, not legislation. The bench said law-making is Parliament’s domain and FIRs are mandatory for cognizable offenses
New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The country's top court on Wednesday refused to issue any additional directions or frame new guidelines to curb hate speech, saying the existing legal framework is sufficient to deal with such crimes.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Wednesday dismissed a group of petitions seeking greater judicial intervention against communal hate speech. These petitions included cases related to incidents such as "Corona Jihad," "UPSS Jihad," and inflammatory speeches made at various religious gatherings. The bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath, stated that criminal cases and the determination of punishment for them fall squarely within the legislative domain. Constitutional courts cannot compel Parliament or state legislatures to enact new laws.
The Supreme Court stated, “While constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights, they cannot themselves make laws or compel the enactment of laws.” The court further stated that while courts can point out the need for reform, the decision to legislate rests with Parliament and state legislatures. The
court also rejected the argument that existing laws do not adequately address hate speech. The court stated that the concern is not about any shortcomings in the law, but rather its ineffective implementation.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court reiterated that it is mandatory to register an FIR upon the discovery of a cognizable offense (serious crime). The court stated that in cases where the police fail to register an FIR, the aggrieved individual may approach the Superintendent of Police (SP). They may then appeal to a magistrate or proceed with a private complaint. However, the court also stated that the central and state governments are free to consider whether emerging challenges in society require further legal intervention, including the amendments recommended in the 267th Law Commission Report of 2017. The decision came on petitions dating back to 2020. Several petitions were filed alleging that communal sentiments were being spread through broadcast media, social media platforms, and public religious gatherings.