By Ritika Jain
Supreme Court said police will face contempt of court action if they did not act against hate speech irrespective of which religion it is against. The top court directed Uttar Pradesh Police, Uttarakhand, and Delhi Police to take suo motu action against whoever makes speeches that attract penal provisions of the law and not wait till a complaint has been filed.
"There cannot be fraternity unless members of the community drawn from different religions and castes are able to live in harmony," it said.
The top court stressed that the petition before them was serious, and it related to the "brewing climate of hate in the country." The plea before us is one of "despondency and angst," the bench added.
Justice KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy further directed the police to submit what action has been taken against hate speech cases so far.
"We are doing far too little. We have to... It is our duty...," the bench said shortly after issuing interim orders.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Shaheen Abdullah who sought the court's intervention to stop the "growing menace of targeting and terrorizing" of the country's Muslim community.
Sibal pointed out instances where leaders of the ruling party called for an economic boycott of Muslim businesses and establishments; while an 'acharya' called for Muslim "throats to be slit."
"A programme was conducted on 30.09.2022 on Aaj Tak, a leading news channel claiming that Muslim men disguise themselves as Hindus and enter the garba pandal to promote love jihad. The shocking claim was made by the host on his primetime show. He then went on to show some ground reports that they have collected for the research which turned out to be an interview with the leader of Bajrang Dal," the plea read.
Also Read:Take Preventive Action Against Dharam Sansad: SC to Uttarakhand
Hate speech shocking for a religion-neutral country: SC
The Supreme Court expressed its despair over the "brewing climate of hate in this country."
"For a country that professes to be a democracy and religion-neutral and where freedom of speech is guaranteed, if you say something offensive that attracts penal provisions then it should be probed," the bench said.
The court said statements against a particular community were being highlighted here, and the court could not appear to be seen on one side only.
"Are Muslims also making hate speeches? Both sides are actually..., the court said. This is the 21st century both sides should be careful. What have we reduced God to?" the bench observed aloud. "And we speak of developing scientific temper," it added.
"Whichever community gives out such statements it's not good," Justice Roy said.
"Both sides should not be making hate speech," Sibal replied. "These events are happening daily," he added.
"On a lighter note, you were the law minister. Shouldn't there be some law passed on this? You should have passed a law," Justice Joseph asked the former law minister.
"We tried to pass a law there was no consensus in the Rajya Sabha," Sibal.
Sibal, a former Congress leader, was union law minister between 2013-2014.
