SC’s Stand on Hate Speech and Religious Tolerance: Too Soft or Balanced?
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a country as diverse as India, where religion, language, and identity intersect with politics, the judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding harmony and constitutional morality. The supreme court of india has repeatedly been asked to step in when hate speech flares up in public discourse, especially with rising communal tensions and inflammatory rhetoric.
This article explores whether the Supreme Court’s approach to hate speech has been too soft, balanced, or evolving, with reference to key cases, constitutional principles, and recent judicial interventions.
Key Aspects of the Supreme Court’s Approach
1. Recognition of Hate Speech as a Threat to Constitutional Values
- The SC acknowledges hate speech as a serious threat to secularism, public order, and unity.
- In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Court urged the legislature to define hate speech more clearly but refused to create new penal provisions through judicial action.
- Reinforced the role of Article 19(2), which permits reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of public order, decency, and morality.
2. Passive Intervention and Repeated Warnings to State Machinery
- The Court has issued repeated directions to police authorities and state governments to act promptly on hate speech, but seldom initiates suo motu contempt or penal action.
- In cases like Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022), the Court directed states to register FIRs suo motu against hate speeches without waiting for complaints.
- Critics argue this approach lacks the teeth needed to create deterrence.
3. Reluctance to Name and Penalize Politicians
- Even when hate speech comes from political leaders, the SC has shown hesitation in ordering disqualifications or arrests.
- This cautious stance reflects concern for maintaining judicial neutrality but raises questions about accountability in electoral politics under Representation of the People Act, 1951.
4. Balancing Free Speech with Social Harmony
- The SC often walks a fine line between protecting freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and curbing speech that incites violence or hatred.
- In many judgments, it has reiterated that the remedy lies in stricter enforcement of existing laws like Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 of the IPC rather than judicial legislation.
5. Call for Legislative Clarity
- The Court has consistently pointed out the lack of a clear statutory definition of hate speech, which creates ambiguity in enforcement.
- It has urged Parliament to address this vacuum and frame a comprehensive hate speech law, rather than leaving it to judicial discretion.
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(2) – Permits reasonable restrictions on speech in the interest of public order, morality, etc.
- Sections 153A, 295A, 505 IPC – Penal provisions dealing with promoting enmity, outraging religious feelings, and making public statements conducive to unrest.
- Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Governs electoral conduct and disqualification for corrupt practices, including hate speech during campaigns.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s position on hate speech reflects a measured and constitutionally cautious approach—assertive in principle, yet often restrained in practice. While it consistently affirms the dangers of hate speech and the duty of the state to act, it stops short of punitive action or radical reinterpretation of existing laws.
Whether this is a display of judicial maturity or a missed opportunity for stronger deterrence remains open to debate. What is clear, however, is that the current legal framework places the primary responsibility on the legislature and executive. The judiciary can guide and nudge, but lasting solutions require clear laws, strict enforcement, and a political culture committed to tolerance and unity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments