'Hate Speeches Are Sullying Entire Atmosphere, Need To Be Curbed' : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Cite Specific Instances

The Supreme Court on Monday heard a Public Interest Litigation filed against rising hate speech against minority communities in the country. While noting that the atmosphere of the nation was being sullied by hate speeches and that they need to be curbed, the bench bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat asked the petitioner to file specific instances of hate speech instead of giving a vague overview of the problem.

At the outset, the petitioner, Advocate Harpreet Mansukhani, appearing in person, submitted that to understand the gravity and seriousness of the case, one must have to understand hate crimes as prejudiced actions targeted at a particular community for their gender, religion and so on. She stated that–

"In the petition, in the synopsis, I have mentioned that the intentional motive here was to commit hate crimes with a weapon called hate speech to target and jail the minority communities, to win the majority Hindu votes, to grab power at all posts, to commit genocide and make India a Hindu Rashtra before 2024 elections. With heavy heart I have to say, to give effect to this vicious and malicious plan, the respondents mentioned in the petition killed common people from the minority...72 hate speeches mentioned in the petition, the hate speech delivered at the Dharam Sansad and the hate speech mentioned in Kashmir Files cannot be taken as isolated cases but  grave conspiracies."

Referring to hate speech as something which had been turned into a "profitable business", the petitioner said that the ruling party supported the "The Kashmir Files" movie and made it tax-free. She stated that the BJP leaders themselves had admitted to killing members of minority community and getting them arrested. While mentioning the issue to be a recurring one, she said–

"The representation of hate speech has been mentioned earlier by many lawyers, 76 lawyers, to the ex-CJI Ramana to take suo moto cognizance and investigate action against targeting of Muslim community. Yet there has been no action. Service chiefs, army veterans, retired bureaucrats and citizens had written a letter to the Prime Minister and the ex-president on 2 January 2022 speaking of harms of participating in genocide but there was no response. On 1 September 2022, while hearing a matter on attack on MPs in Haryana, UP, MP, Karnataka and many other places, the honourable Justice Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli gave two months to seek status report. They said that they had earlier laid down guidelines in the Tehseen Poonawalla order."

CJI Lalit while seeking details on particular instances of hate speech orally remarked that–

"We don't even know what are the details of those particular crimes, what is the status, what is your say, who are the persons involved, whether any crime was registered not registered etc. You may be right, perhaps, in saying that the entire atmosphere is being sullied as a result of hate speeches. Perhaps you have every justifiable grounds to say that this needs to be curbed. But this kind of ominous petition under Article 32 cannot be. According to us, if you can have assistance of a senior counsel of this court as amicus, then we can see."

However, the petitioner stressed on more instances of hate speech and submitted that in an earlier petition she had filed, there was an order passed by ex-CJI Mr Ranjan Gogoi where it was said that during the elections, hate speeches should not be allowed. As per the petitioner, Mr. Yogi Adityanath and Ms. Mayawati were banned from speaking and the election commission had said that FIRs could be lodged in cases of hate crimes. However, the petitioner stated that since 2019 senior leaders had committed several hate crimes and had admitted on killing people from minority community. She stated that– "Every time hate speech is done, it is like an arrow that never returns."

The bench, however, remained unconvinced and reiterated that–

"What happens is for a court to take cognizance of certain things, there must be factual background. You may concentrate on maybe a case or two. Something or the other in form of petition, in one of the cases by way of sample that you can give. This is too random a petition saying that there are 58 instances where someone made a hate speech. Rather than giving us a vague idea, you concentrate on immediate instances"

The matter is accordingly adjourned and will be heard on 31st October next. 

CASE TITLE: Harpreet Mansukhani v UOI W.P.(Crl.) No. 89/2022 

Click Here To Read/Download Order