500% Rise In Hate Speech Cases Against Politicians & Public Functionaries Since 2014: Supreme Court Told

The submission was made on behalf of the petitioner in a case concerning the extent of the right to free speech of public functionaries such as Ministers.

The case stems from the Bulandshahar rape incident wherein a Minister of the State, Azam Khan had dismissed the incident as a "political conspiracy and nothing else".

The Petitioner claims that over the course of time, there have been numerous instances of 'hate speech' carried out in the guise of freedom of speech and expression.

He relied on data collected by NDTV to claim that from May 2014 to the present, there have been 124 reported instances of VIP derogatory speeches by 45 politicians, compared to 21 instances under the earlier regime (prior to 2014).

He cited numerous derogatory statements made by such functionaries— One allegedly made by a BJP and RSS leader for "wiping out" of two particular religious communities.

The Petitioner said such speeches propagated by political leaders exemplify their exclusionary agenda and provides fertile ground for incitement to violence.

"Hate speech expressed at the highest levels of political authority remain unchecked, and new policies have exacerbated a climate of intercommunal tension and impunity for offenders. In many other occasions, even when there is no communal anger, the derogatory speeches can diminish the dignity, self-esteem and privacy of citizens or their collectives, especially the marginalised and vulnerable," the written submissions states.

He also blames social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram for having "connived" the proliferation of targeted hate speech.

The Petitioner submitted that the issue is not non-existence of laws against hate speech but rather, lack of effective and fair implementation of these laws. He emphasized that laws against hate crimes are often selectively applied.

However, he cautiously added that a solution to this needs to be materialised without creating a chilling effect on public functionaries who would require functional independence and autonomy.

It is therefore urged that the legislature be directed to consider adopting a "Voluntary Model Code of Conduct" for persons holding the public offices.

Further, it is suggested that India may adopt the "Ombudsman model", which will regulate hate speech without the requirement for any prior sanction. An Ombudsman acts as an intermediate and independent official that receives complaints against public officials and suggest remedies for resolving the same.

Till a special Ombudsman is constituted, Petitioner suggested that the National and State Human Rights Commission need to be alerted on the issue.

He added that the court may suggest to the legislature to consider framing a code of conduct for cabinet ministers at the Centre and the States.

The five-judge constitution bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna has reserved judgment in the matter. The primary issue involved is whether free speech by public functionaries, including inter alia ministers, MLAs, MPs, should have greater restrictions than those imposed by Article 19 (2).

The matter was referred to a larger bench in 2016.

Court heard Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj and Thulasi K. Raj for the Petitioner and Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union.