The Supreme Court of India has ruled that current criminal laws are sufficient to tackle hate speech, rejecting the need for judicial intervention and upholding the legislative domain.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court finds the existing criminal law framework adequately addresses hate speech issues.
- The court declines to issue directions, stating creation of criminal offences is a legislative domain.
- The judgement acknowledges the importance of preserving fraternity, dignity, and constitutional order in relation to hate speech.
- The court notes the existing statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a mechanism to set criminal law in motion.
- The Supreme Court suggests legislative authorities may consider amendments in light of evolving societal challenges.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the existing framework of criminal law adequately addresses the issue of hate speeches and no "legislative vacuum" exists warranting intervention.
"The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied, is misconceived," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said in its verdict on a batch of petitions related to hate speeches.
Supreme Court's Stance on Legislative Amendments
The top court said it would be open to the Centre and the competent legislative authorities to consider in their wisdom whether any further legislative or policy measures were warranted in light of the evolving societal challenges or to bring about suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission's 267th report of March 2017.
"While we decline to issue directions of the nature sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that the issues relating to hate speeches and rumour-mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and Constitutional order," Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.
Separation of Powers and Criminal Liability
The apex court said creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lies squarely with the legislative domain.
It said the constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions.
"The precedents of this court consistently affirm that while Constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to secure the enforcement of fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation," the bench said.
Adequacy of Existing Criminal Law
It said the existing framework of substantive criminal law, including the provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, and allied legislations adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity.
"The field is, therefore, not unoccupied," the bench said.
It said the statutory framework under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive and layered mechanism to set the criminal law in motion.
The bench said the duty of police to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence is mandatory and in cases of non-registration of FIR, the CrPC or the BNSS provides efficacious remedy.
The detailed judgment is awaited.
The top court had reserved its verdict on the pleas on January 20.
