Supreme Court: Hate Speech Rooted in 'Us vs Them' Thinking

Synopsis

The Supreme Court in a 125-page judgment noted that hate speech and rumour-mongering stem from an "us vs them" attitude and are detrimental to constitutional fraternity. The court refrained from mandating Parliament to pass particular laws, but recommended strict enforcement of the law, leaving it to the Union government to decide on law-making.

Supreme Court: Hate Speech based on Exclusion

Judges Say the "Us vs Them" Mentality Threatens Unity, a Guiding Principle of the Indian Constitution

In a landmark judgement issued on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India ruled that hate speech and rumour-mongering essentially arise out of a sense of difference, which treats the "other" as something or someone that is foreign, inferior or not worth equal respect. But the court did not order the lawmakers to enact separate legislation to curb the crime.

What the Court Said: Fraternity Under Threat

The 125-page judgment handed down by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta came in response to a series of petitions calling for separate laws to address hate speech and hate crimes. The petitions also highlighted the persistence of hate speech in public discourse, despite the fact a number of Supreme Court judgements on the issue exist.

"Hate speech essentially arises from the sense of difference that leads to exclusion where the 'other' is seen as something alien, inferior or not worthy of equal respect," the Bench pointed out.

Justice Nath also warned that until the possibility of "us" and "them" in society and politics was eliminated, the promise of fraternity in the Constitution would not be fulfilled. "Questions of 'hate speech' and 'rumour mongering' go to the maintenance of fraternity, dignity and constitutional integrity," he said.

Court Steers Clear of Law Making

While serious in its observations, the court was clear law-making is the exclusive preserve of Parliament, not the judiciary. The court emphasised that it could not mandate the legislature to pass certain laws on hate speech, leaving the decision-making to the Union government and other legislative bodies.

Rather, it emphasised the need for effective and rigorous enforcement of existing laws that already address hate speech - a stance that puts the onus on the executive and prosecution authorities.

The Significance of the Judgment

The judgment comes at a time when issues of communal polarisation, hate speech and misinformation have been at the forefront of legal and public debate - particularly when it comes to religious and ethnic minorities. A large number of recent petitions have called for the existing law, under the Indian Penal Code (and its new replacement, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), to be either more specific or better enforced with respect to hate crimes.

In acknowledging the constitutional implications of hate speech while simultaneously leaving it to Parliament to legislate, the court has placed this issue on the political and legislative agenda, paving the way for a highly anticipated policy debate.

The Way Forward: Action for the Legislature

The Supreme Court's decision, while not legally binding, is morally and constitutionally important. It is a formal alert to the Union government that the lack of a specific legislative framework on hate speech is a problem that needs to be addressed.

What Parliament does - or does not - with it will shape the future of India's constitutional values of dignity, equality and fraternity in the context of a polarised news environment.

The words of the law can erect walls or create connections. The court has returned the chisel to the legislature.