Case Law On Supreme Court Rulings Against Hate Preachers
The Supreme Court of India has addressed the issue of hate speech and hate preaching on numerous occasions, taking a firm stance against individuals or groups spreading messages of hatred or inciting violence based on caste, religion, or community. Such speech is not only a criminal offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but is also a violation of the Constitution because it undermines the core principles of equality, secularism, and freedom of speech.
Hate speech includes any speech, gesture, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudices others based on race, religion, ethnicity, or other protected categories. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need to curb hate preaching in all forms, while balancing this with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
Here, I will explain in detail several landmark cases where the Supreme Court has taken a strong position against hate preachers and hate speech.
1. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012)
Facts:
The case originated after the Ramlila Maidan incident involving the leader Baba Ramdev, who was accused of using inflammatory rhetoric during his public speech to stir up emotions against the government. The speech contained elements that were perceived as provocative and intended to create divisions based on political ideologies, religious sentiments, and social unrest. Several sections of the media and civil society accused the speech of inciting people to violence.
Issue:
The key issue was whether the speech made by the leader could be categorized as hate speech and whether it violated public order or incited violence.
Decision:
In the judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the delicate balance between the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the need to protect public order and prevent hate speech. The Court referred to Article 19(2), which allows for restrictions on freedom of speech in cases involving incitement to violence and public disorder.
The Court noted that if any speech has the potential to incite violence or disturb public peace, it must be dealt with under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court emphasized that even if a speech was meant to express legitimate grievances, if it crossed the line into hate speech or incitement, it could lead to criminal prosecution.
Significance:
This ruling affirmed that hate speech—even under the guise of political or social commentary—should be carefully scrutinized to ensure it does not incite violence or promote religious intolerance. The judgment reinforced the idea that the freedom of speech could be curtailed if it threatened the integrity of the nation or public peace.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a petition challenging the validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized the sending of offensive messages through communication services, etc. This provision was often used to prosecute individuals for posting derogatory or hateful content online. In the context of hate preaching, Section 66A had been misused by authorities to arrest people for posting comments critical of religious or political groups.
The issue arose when two women were arrested for a Facebook post criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a political leader. One of the women posted a comment expressing her displeasure over the city being shut down, and the other "liked" the comment. Both were charged under Section 66A, leading to public outcry over the misuse of the provision.
Issue:
The issue was whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was constitutionally valid and whether it violated the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution. Specifically, whether it was being misused for curbing legitimate expressions of dissent and criticizing political or religious leaders under the guise of hate speech.
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the grounds that it was vague and overly broad, and thus violated the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Court held that laws restricting free speech must be specific and should not be used to suppress legitimate criticism or expressions of dissent.
However, the Court also emphasized that hate speech that incites violence or communal disharmony could still be regulated and prosecuted under other provisions of the IPC, including Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).
Significance:
This ruling highlighted the dangers of overreach in regulating speech, particularly in the age of social media. While the Court protected freedom of expression, it reaffirmed that hate speech, particularly speech that incites violence, religious intolerance, or communal hatred, is not protected under the Constitution.
3. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
This case arose from a petition filed by Tehseen Poonawalla seeking urgent action against hate speech and incitement to violence. The petition highlighted the rise in hate speech in public discourse, especially by political and religious leaders, which had led to several incidents of mob violence and lynchings. The petitioners argued that the lack of strict enforcement of laws against hate speech had led to the targeting of vulnerable communities, particularly Muslims, Dalits, and tribal people.
Issue:
The primary legal issue was whether the Supreme Court should lay down clear directions for the prevention of hate speech and incitement to violence, particularly with regard to politicians and public figures who often made inflammatory remarks that could lead to communal violence.
Decision:
The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in which it took a strong stance against hate speech. The Court issued specific guidelines to law enforcement agencies, directing them to take immediate action against individuals making speeches that promote communal hatred, violence, or intolerance. It also instructed that strict actions should be taken against people making inflammatory speeches, especially during elections, and recommended the appointment of nodel officers to monitor hate speech.
The Court further observed that hate speech that incited violence was a serious offense and that political and religious leaders should be held accountable for the consequences of their statements. The Court also emphasized the importance of political parties taking responsibility for hate speech by their leaders.
Significance:
This case was important in setting out clear guidelines for dealing with hate speech in the public domain and the accountability of public figures who engage in such speech. It emphasized that hate speech has no place in a democratic society and should be subject to legal sanctions, especially when it leads to violence.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Singh (2014)
Facts:
Amar Singh, a prominent politician, was accused of making inflammatory speeches that incited violence against a particular community. He had used derogatory language and invoked communal sentiments during public speeches, especially around elections, which were widely reported in the media. These remarks were considered to have the potential to disrupt communal harmony and lead to violence.
Issue:
The issue was whether the statements made by Amar Singh could be classified as hate speech under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes acts that promote enmity between different groups based on religion, race, or place of birth.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the speeches made by Amar Singh were indeed inflammatory and amounted to hate speech. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file charges against him under Section 153A of the IPC. The Court emphasized that incitement to communal violence was a grave offense, and hate speech that causes or has the potential to cause social unrest must be dealt with strictly by the authorities.
Significance:
The case marked a significant step in recognizing that politicians or public figures could not use their position to incite communal hatred or violence. The Court's decision reinforced the view that hate speech undermines the foundations of secularism and peaceful coexistence enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
5. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)
Facts:
In this case, the petitioner, Arup Bhuyan, was charged with waging war against the state after making statements that were seen as inciting hate between Hindus and Muslims. Bhuyan, a political figure, made speeches that were critical of Muslim communities and accused them of being a threat to Hindu identity. His speech, seen as divisive, led to communal unrest in the region.
Issue:
The issue was whether Bhuyan's statements amounted to hate speech and whether the freedom of speech protections under the Constitution could be extended to him or if his actions were outside the scope of the right to free speech.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the right to free speech is not absolute and can be restricted when speech incites violence or disturbs public order. The Court ruled that hate speech that causes disruption and violence in the public sphere should not be protected. Bhuyan's actions were deemed as a breach of public order, and he was convicted for his role in inciting communal hatred.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the legal principle that hate speech should be dealt with severely under Indian law. It clarified that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution does not cover hate speech and that speech that incites violence and hatred must be curbed to maintain public order and social harmony.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in defining the scope of hate speech and establishing legal precedents that limit its spread, particularly in the context of politicians, religious leaders, and public figures who may use their platforms to incite communal violence. Through these judgments, the Court has consistently emphasized that hate speech, which promotes violence, communal discord, or discrimination, will not be tolerated, and such actions will be penalized under existing criminal laws.
RELATED Blog
comments