Plea Against Boycott Calls | Supreme Court Says Hate Speech Problem Must End; Moots Plan to Direct Police Chief to Form District-Level Committees

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was hearing a plea filed seeking action against calls made by several groups for the social and economic boycott of Muslims following the Nuh-Gurugram communal violence in Haryana. 

Right at the outset today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stressed the need to address the problem of hate speech and grant protection to people being targeted in extremists' violent rhetoric, "You have to protect people. This kind of vitriol cannot go on!"

"Were such instances reported from only Nuh district, or other districts as well? Were such speeches delivered in multiple states?" Justice Khanna asked the senior counsel.

"Multiple," Sibal replied in the affirmative.

Addressing Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj, who was representing the Delhi Police, Justice Khanna criticised the current state of affairs as 'unacceptable', before suggesting the formation of a committee by the police chief that would assess material on hate speech complaints and issue appropriate directions to the concerned police officer.

"Mr Nataraj, there has to be harmony and comity between communities. Everyone is responsible. All communities are responsible. What is to be done in such a case? This is not acceptable. We can ask the Director General of Police to constitute a committee of three or four people officers which will receive the material available to station house officers when they receive complaints [of hate speech] and this committee can then examine the material both with regard to the content as well as its authenticity. Accordingly, this committee will issue appropriate directions to concerned police officers, who will then proceed further in accordance with law."

"But the records must be maintained by them. The problem is, at the SHO level or at the level of the police station, the understanding of the nuances of the law is a little different. Whereas senior or mid-level officers...They can sensitise them," Justice Khanna added. The bench expressed its willingness to pass orders in terms of this suggestion subject to the concurrence of the Government and the petitioners.

"Let me first have the benefit of [seeing] what they have sought," ASG Nataraj told the bench.

"This problem has to be solved. No one can accept it," Justice Khanna said.

"Definitely," the law officer replied, before adding that the government in no way wished to condone hate speech 'even for a minute'. However, he pointed out that there was a mechanism under the law to address the problem of hate speech. "The law is settled. There is a mechanism. But somehow, in some places, it's not working. Either they can avail the remedy available..."

"That would entail going to the court," Justice Khanna protested, "Why not have an in-built mechanism to deal with these at the first instance? Of course, if the committee declines to register an FIR, the other side would be entitled to approach a magistrate or take recourse to any other remedy available to them. Again, if an FIR is wrongfully registered, a person will have the remedy available under the law."

ASG Nataraj expressed concerns over people approaching the Supreme Court asking it to address such grievances, by saying, "Otherwise, what will happen is that they will keep on filing application after application."

"We do not want that. This court should not become the recourse," Justice Khanna agreed.

"That's our concern," the law officer said.

When Sibal was asked for his thoughts on the suggestion, the senior counsel expressed his doubts. "My problem is when someone, in the presence of the police, threatens shopkeepers to throw out Muslims in the next two days...This committee is not going to help."

"What we are suggesting is, whatever has happened can be dealt with by this committee set up by the DGP - maybe for each district, or for two or more districts, depending upon the situation," Justice Khanna explained before asking ASG Nataraj to 'take instructions' on this suggestion.

Sibal voiced his apprehension that in the meantime, these processions organised by fundamentalist outfits would continue unimpeded and its leaders would continue delivering hateful speeches inciting violence against one community. "We have already issues directions with respect to CCTV camera footage and videos. These videos must be preserved," Justice Khanna responded.

Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Deputy Advocate General of Uttarakhand, interjected at this moment to say that the State Police has suo motu registered FIRs in the hate speech cases. 

Justice Khanna then said, "An FIR may have been registered in one case, but there are a number of cases. We have to find a solution to the problem."

Sibal added, "The problem is not the registration of FIRs, but what progress is made. They do not arrest anybody, nor do they prosecute anybody. Nothing happens after FIRs are registered. Then, what is the point of saying an FIR has been registered?"

Justice Khanna suggested, "This committee, when there are such instances, must meet within specified timelines. Second, when the FIRs are registered, it must also periodically check up on the progress. This committee won't conduct an investigation, neither do we want to step in every case. But there must be a mechanism in place to ensure...One thing is, they must maintain proper records so that if there's any laxity, it can be checked."

The Uttarakhand law officer then stated that there is a mechanism in place already to deal with hate speech cases and suggested that the petitioners can approach the nodal officers appointed in terms of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, in which the Supreme Court issued various directions in 2018 to prevent mob violence crimes.

Finally, the bench pronounced:

"...Relist on next Friday. In the meanwhile, it will be open to the applicants/petitioners to send copies of material available with them, including electronic material, to the nodal officer appointed in terms of the decision in Tehseen Poonawalla. It will be open to the respondents to file status report."

Background

Earlier this month, Nuh in Haryana witnessed communal violence, which eventually spread to the neighbouring Gurugram in Delhi NCR. In response, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal announced protest marches throughout the national capital region. Fearing that these rallies would lead to large-scale violence, Shaheen Abdulla filed an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court in the pending hate speech matter, urging the court to urgently intervene. In February, the Supreme Court had passed directions in his petition to the State of Maharashtra to prevent hate speeches in ‘Sakal Hindu Manj’ rallies.

In a special hearing on August 2, a bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna heard the application and while refusing to pre-emptively stop any rallies or protest marches, the bench urged the authorities, including the police, to ensure that no violence breaks out in these events, and that there are no instances of hate speech. The bench also directed the authorities to use CCTV cameras, where installed, and make video recordings of the rallies in sensitive areas wherever required, and preserve all videos and surveillance footage. The order reads:

“We hope and trust that the State Governments, including the police authorities, will ensure that there are no hate speeches against any community and there is no violence or damage to properties. Wherever required, adequate police force or paramilitary forces will be deployed. Further, authorities including the police will take use of the CCTV cameras where installed or make video recordings in all sensitive areas wherever required. The CCTV footage and the videos will be preserved.”

On August 4, the matter was taken up again and the court issued a call to action to stakeholders to find an enduring solution to the problem of hate speech. Highlighting that the difficulty lay in implementing and executing the law on hate speech, Justice Sanjiv Khanna suggested appropriately sensitising the police forces to ensure that victims of hate speech could access meaningful remedies without having to come to the court.

Less than a week later, the petitioner was back in the apex court with a plea seeking action against calls made by several groups for the social and economic boycott of Muslims following the Nuh-Gurugram communal violence in Haryana. According to the application, despite the court’s order, more than 27 rallies were organised across various states in which incendiary, Islamophobic speeches were openly delivered urging for the social and economic boycott of Muslims. Not only this, extremist groups also escalated rhetoric with calls to kill Muslims, the applicant claimed. Some Hindutva groups and leaders delivered such hate speech, Abdulla has further alleged, in the present of the police. The plea states:

“…Such rallies that demonise communities and openly call for violence and killing of people are not limited in terms of their impact to just those areas that are presently dealing with communal tensions but will inevitably lead to communal disharmony and violence of an unfathomable scale across the country.”

Abdulla’s application – mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on August 8 seeking urgent hearing – has sought action against the police officers who participated in these rallies and meetings, on grounds of their failure to prevent hate speech. The applicant has further prayed for directions to the concerned state police to explain the action taken by them against instances of hate speech.

Case Details

Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022