'Police Sensitisation Required': Supreme Court Calls For Enduring Solution To Hate Speeches

These observations were made today during a hearing of a plea against the rallies and protest marches organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal in various parts across the Delhi national capital region (NCR) in the wake of the communal violence in Haryana’s Nuh and Gurugram.

Although the division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti adjourned the hearing, there was a brief exchange in the courtroom, during which the court urged the parties to adopt a constructive approach and find out a solution. However, after clarifying that he was not in any way condoning instances of hate speech by any community or person, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that the petitioners prematurely approached the top court without pursuing remedies available under the law. He said:

"The law has been clarified in Tehseen Poonawalla. No one can justify hate speech by Community A or Community B. I am also not doing that. If there is any violation of law, the remedy would be to file an FIR. If an FIR is not registered, you have to approach a competent court. Now, the practice that has developed is...two practices actually. They come to the Supreme Court in contempt petitions, seeking directions from the Supreme Court. Now, a step ahead...before any organisation or any person organises a function, they are coming to this court seeking an advanced ruling so as to ensure no offence is committed."

"There's a little problem," Justice Khanna interjected, "The law on hate speech is complex. As far as execution or implementation is concerned...everyone cannot be coming to the court."

SG Mehta chimed in, "They are!"

Justice Khanna, in response, emphasised the lack of sensitisation among the police forces. "The police forces needed to be sensitised in order for these matters to be resolved. On that, we would require your assistance. Secondly, it is not in anyone's interest that there exist such social tensions."

The law officer agreed, "It is not in the interest of the country, not just communities." But, he continued, the difficulty is that petitioners approaching the Supreme Court were 'selective' to subserve ulterior motives. "This petitioner, staying in Delhi, hailing from Kerala, files petitions only for Maharashtra...Only for one community."

"We are not going into that," Justice Khanna said.

"This is not adversarial litigation. The thing is, it is not just hate speech. These are almost calls for genocide," Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the petitioner, interjected at this point.

"What I will do is, I have some similar speeches. I will share the videos with my learned friend. Let him amend the petition." the solicitor-general countered, before adding:

"There are some lawyers who give me clips. The speeches in these clips demolish the very vital fabric of our country which is secularism. I will ask these lawyers to share the videos with Mr.(Nizam) Pasha(petitioner's lawyer) so that he can place them before this court. Selected people come to this court, with selected prayers."

Advocate Nizam Pasha replied:

"The reason why we have to approach the court again and again is because when the police refuses to register first information reports, there is a procedure in law. But when the same people meanwhile are making hate speeches again and again. And you see the consequences. Speeches asking one community to leave a state or an area..."

"Exactly, I will share such videos with Mr Pasha," the solicitor-general shot back, "I want to see your bona fide. I am making this clear."

"One thing is to look at the past. One thing is to look at the future," Justice Khanna said, urging all parties to adopt a constructive approach, but Solicitor-General Mehta protested, saying, "Past events are necessary to decide the future. I will take this court through these events."

"We will have to find a solution to this," Justice Khanna firmly said. He explained that there needed to be a solution that would allow victims of hate speech to access justice without having to come to the court:

"There has to be some way in which we deal with this problem. Everyone should not be coming to the court. In case there is any infringement...Even in the last order, we specifically said that all identities...everyone would be covered. Some solution has to be found out. Re-list after two weeks."

Background

This week, 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. On Wednesday, fearing that these rallies would lead to large-scale violence, one Shaheen Abdullah 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.

Alleging that the provocative statements were made in the earlier rallies held by these organisations in Bhiwani and Najafgarh in Haryana, the application stated, “Given the fact that the situation in Nuh and Gurgaon continues to be extremely tense and even the slightest provocation could result in a serious loss of life and damage to property, rallies that are likely to fan communal fires and incite people to resort to violence, ought to not be permitted.”

This application was mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for urgent listing. Subsequently, a special sitting was held at 2 PM by a bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Although the court refused to pre-emptively stop any rallies or protest marches, it 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.”

Further, the court directed the registry to communicate the order to the standing counsels of the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and National Capital Territory of Delhi. With these instructions, the bench adjourned the hearing till Friday, August 4 (today).

Case Details

Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. | Interlocutory Application No. 149401 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022