Hate Speech Not Same As Wrong Assertions Or False Claims : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (November 14), while dismissing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent 'provocative speech' by political leaders, observed that the offence of hate speech cannot be equated to the act of wrong assertions or false claims that one may make.

The plea filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav stressed the need for guidelines to "prevent the growing menace of delivery of provoking public speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State."

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the PIL considering that the Court in the case of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. was already seized of the issue of hate speech.

Notably, in Shaheen Abdullah, the Court directed that these state Governments should take suo motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any complaint. Cases should be suo motu registered and the offenders should be proceeded against in accordance with law. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court, the Court warned.

In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India, the Court extended the above directions to police forces of all States/UTs to suo motu register FIRs in hate speech crimes(offences attracting Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC) without waiting for any formal complaint.

During the hearing, the CJI pointed out that PIL misconstrued the offence of Hate Speech.

"You have gone all over the place without realizing what is hate speech also" CJI remarked.

The petition referred to certain statements made by Congress MLA Sajjan Singh Verma in Indore on August 8 regarding the public storming of the residences of the Sri Lankan President and Bangladesh Prime Minister. It also mentioned statements made by the National Spokesperson for the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) Rakesh Tikait on August 21 in Meerut, U.P. regarding the farmers' protest on Republic Day 2021.

The Court while dismissing the PIL, noted that elements of hate speech cannot be considered similar to the act of uttering wrong assertions or false claims by an individual, as both stood of a different footing.

"We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged utterances over a long period of time. Further, the offence of hate speech is specific and cannot be equated with wrong assertions or false claims."

"In case the petitioner has any specific grievance it may raise the same in accordance with law ...we make no comments either way in this regard."

A detailed explainer on the law on hate speech and its applicability to electoral candidates and political leaders can be read here.

About The PIL

The following reliefs were sought by the petitioners :

(a) direct respondents to frame rules, regulations or guidelines to regulate and prevent delivery of provoking speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State; and/or

(b) direct respondents to initiate appropriate action under relevant penal statues against the speakers as well as the organizations engaging in activities that lead to jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the state and act as a threat to the unity and integrity of India; and/or

(c) direction to ensure an independent, credible and impartial investigation into the incidents of delivery of provoking public speeches endangering the security of the state, in a timebound manner, monitored by this Hon'ble Court; and/or

(d) direction for issuance of appropriate directions against respondents for commencement of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971; and/or

(e) direction for initiation of a mandatory training programme for politicians as well as the members of organizations and associations engaged in political activities; and/or

(f) direction to submit an explanation and justification of the statements on secession akin to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh; and/or

(g) direction for filing of an affidavit by Rakesh Tikait undertaking that he shall not address and participate in the farmers' protest; and/or

(h) pass such other/further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The petitioners were represented by Kunwar Aditya Singh along with Advocate Swatantra Rai. The PIL was filed with the assistance of AOR Vishal Arun Mishra.

Case Details : HINDU SENA SAMITI AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024