Source: The Times of India 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought guidelines to prevent hate speeches by political leaders. The PIL, filed by Hindu Sena Samiti, raised concerns about inflammatory statements made by various political figures that allegedly threatened public order and national security. The Court made an important distinction, clarifying that hate speech should not be confused with merely making wrong assertions or false claims. This ruling came as the Supreme Court is already handling several cases related to hate speech under the Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India matter. 

What was the Issued Raised under PIL? 

• The PIL was filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav, expressing concern over what they termed as "provocative public speeches" that allegedly endangered state security and sovereignty. 
• The petition specifically highlighted statements by Congress MLA Sajjan Singh Verma in Indore (8th August 2024) regarding potential public uprisings similar to those in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 
• It also referenced statements by Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) spokesperson Rakesh Tikait in Meerut (21st August 2024) concerning farmers' protests and their potential escalation. 
• The petitioners sought various reliefs including:  
  • Guidelines to regulate and prevent provocative speeches 
  • Action against speakers and organizations threatening national security 
  • Mandatory training programs for politicians and political organizations 
  • Independent investigation of incidents involving provocative public speeches 
• The petition referenced previous Supreme Court orders in Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2022) and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021) cases, which mandated suo motu action against hate speech. 
• The petitioners argued for proactive measures to prevent inflammatory speeches that could potentially lead to societal unrest and weaken the country's social fabric. 
• They also emphasized the need for educational programs and orientation sessions for political representatives to promote awareness about legal restrictions on public speech. 
• The petition sought to establish a clear framework for distinguishing between legitimate political discourse and speech that threatens national security or social harmony. 

What are the Reliefs Sought by the Petitioners in PIL? 

• Guidelines Formation:  
  • The petitioners requested the Court to direct respondents to frame rules, regulations, or guidelines to regulate and prevent the delivery of provocative speeches that might jeopardize state sovereignty and security. 
• Penal Action:  
  • They sought directions for appropriate action under relevant penal statutes against both speakers and organizations engaging in activities that threaten India's unity, integrity, and security. 
• Investigation Request: 
  • A plea for an independent, credible, and impartial investigation into incidents of provocative public speeches, to be conducted in a time-bound manner under the Court's monitoring. 
• Contempt Proceedings: 
  • The petitioners requested directions for initiating contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against relevant respondents. 
• Training Program:  
  • They sought mandatory training programs for politicians and members of organizations engaged in political activities to better understand speech restrictions. 
• Explanation Requirement:  
  • A direction was sought requiring explanation and justification of statements relating to secession, particularly those drawing parallels with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 
• Specific Restriction: 
  •  The petition specifically requested a direction requiring Rakesh Tikait to file an affidavit undertaking that he would not address or participate in farmers' protests. 
• General Authority: 
  • The petitioners requested the Court to pass any other orders it deemed fit and proper given the circumstances of the case. 
• Preventive Measures:  
  • They sought proactive measures and mechanisms to prevent the delivery of provocative speeches that could potentially incite violence or disturb public order. 

What were the Court Observations? 

• Primary Distinction: The Court made a crucial distinction by stating that hate speech is specific and cannot be equated with wrong assertions or false claims. This established a clear legal boundary between inflammatory hate speech and merely incorrect statements. 
• Existing Case Precedent: The Court noted it was already examining hate speech issues in the Shaheen Abdullah case, indicating there was no need for fresh guidelines or intervention through this new PIL. 
• Jurisdiction and Remedy: The Court observed that if petitioners had specific grievances, they should raise them through appropriate legal channels rather than seeking broad interventions under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
• Contempt Notices: CJI Khanna clarified that except for one or two pending applications, the Court had not issued contempt notices in the cases they were dealing with, addressing the petitioner's concerns about enforcement. 
• Scope of Review: The Court found that the petition "went all over the place without realizing what is hate speech," suggesting a lack of focused understanding of the legal concept of hate speech. 
• Previous Directives: The Court referenced its earlier directions to state governments about taking suo motu action against hate speech crimes, regardless of the speaker's religion, which were still in effect. 
• Legal Framework: The Court emphasized that existing legal provisions (Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)) were adequate to deal with hate speech crimes, suggesting no need for additional guidelines. 
• Timeline Consideration: The Court noted that the petition referred to "alleged utterances over a long period of time," indicating that such historical instances should be addressed through regular legal channels rather than through PIL jurisdiction. 

Cases Referred 

• Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2022): 
  • The primary case dealing with hate speech issues 
  • Directed state governments to take suo motu action against hate speech crimes 
  • Specified that action should be taken regardless of the speaker's religion 
  • Warned that non-compliance would be viewed as contempt of court 
• Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021): 
  • Extended the directions given in Shaheen Abdullah case 
  • Mandated police forces of all States/UTs to suo motu register FIRs in hate speech crimes 
  • Specifically dealt with offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506 of IPC 
  • Required action without waiting for formal complaints 

Hate Speech Provision Under Indian Laws 

• Constitutional Framework: 
  • No specific definition of "hate speech" in Indian law 
  • Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression 
  • Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions for public order, security, and morality 
• BNS ( Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) 
  • Section 196: 
    • Any act that disturbs public tranquility or harms harmony between different groups (religious, racial, linguistic, regional groups, castes, communities), including organizing/participating in activities that train people to use violence against such groups, is punishable. 
    • It is punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine to promote disharmony or enmity through any means (spoken, written, electronic, signs) based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community, or any other grounds. 
    • If these offenses are committed in places of worship or during religious ceremonies, the punishment is enhanced to up to 5 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 197: 
    • It is punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine to make or publish any imputation that members of any religious, racial, linguistic, regional group, caste, or community cannot bear true faith to India's Constitution or uphold India's sovereignty. 
    • Making statements or publishing content that suggests denying citizenship rights to any group based on their religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste, or community identity, or publishing content that causes disharmony/enmity between such groups is prohibited. 
    • If these offenses (including making false/misleading information that jeopardizes India's sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security) are committed in places of worship or during religious ceremonies, the punishment is enhanced to 5 years imprisonment plus fine. 
• Under Representation of People’s Act: 
  • Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA): Prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election. 
  • Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA: Bars the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and includes it under corrupt electoral practices. 

Conclusion  

The Court's decision states that not all controversial or incorrect statements qualify as hate speech, a specific legal offense. While dismissing this particular PIL, the Court maintained that existing cases addressing hate speech are already under consideration. The judgment suggests that those with specific grievances should pursue them through appropriate legal channels rather than seeking broad new guidelines. This ruling helps clarify the boundaries between controversial political rhetoric and actual hate speech.