Supreme Court Declines to Monitor All Hate Speech Incidents Across India, Directs Petitioners to Approach High Courts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated it is not inclined to legislate or monitor every hate speech incident across the country, pointing to existing legislative measures, police stations, and high courts already in place.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made these observations while hearing an application about alleged calls for social and economic boycott of a particular community.

"We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this country. There are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They are already in place," the bench emphasized.

The court had initially advised the applicant to approach the relevant high court with their grievance.

"How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country? You approach the authorities. Let them take action; otherwise, go to the high court," the bench instructed the applicant's counsel.

The lawyer explained they had filed an application in a pending writ petition addressing hate speech issues, bringing additional instances of economic boycott calls to the court's attention.

When the bench noted that such calls were made by certain individuals, the lawyer countered that some public representatives were also issuing similar calls.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, present in court, argued that public interest cannot be selective to one particular religion, stating, "There are severe hate speeches going on amongst all religions. I will supply those details to my friend. Let him add that and espouse that public cause on a pan-religion basis."

The applicant's counsel maintained they brought the matter to court because authorities weren't taking action.

They argued that in previous hate speech cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that if states took no action, police should act suo-motu, or face contempt proceedings.

The counsel suggested the Solicitor General could notify states to take appropriate action on hate speech.

"No one can be indulging in hate speech -- that is my stand. But while complaining, a public-spirited person cannot be selective," Mehta responded.

The bench directed the applicant to use existing legal mechanisms and approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief, assuring that high courts would handle the matter if public interest was involved.

The applicant's counsel referenced an October 2022 Supreme Court order directing three states to take strong action against hate speech makers.

They also mentioned another application regarding an Assam minister's remarks about Bihar elections approving "gobi (cauliflower) farming," allegedly referencing the 1989 Bhagalpur violence where minority community members were killed and buried in fields.

The bench scheduled all these matters for hearing on December 9.