The recent chapter of violence in Nuh, Haryana is yet to end. Hindutva organisations like the VHP and Bajrang Dal continue to test the might of the state by taking out rallies in which blatant anti-Muslim speeches are made that are full of hate and provocation. Some peace and justice-loving citizens filed petitions in the Supreme Court of India, demanding urgent intervention by the apex court before things take a turn for the worse. A bench of Justices Sanjeev Khanna and SVN Bhatti, while hearing these petitions, made some pertinent comments regarding hate speech.
The Tehseen Poonawala Case
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v/s Union of India is a significant case that deals with the issue of cow vigilantism and mob violence. The case was filed in 2017 in which the Supreme Court issued directions to the states regarding preventive, punitive, and remedial measures to protect lives and human rights to confront the “sweeping phenomenon” of lynchings and mob violence in India.
Some of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case are: A nodal officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or above to be appointed in each district to prevent mob lynching and cow vigilantism. Within three weeks of the date of the judgment, the state governments must identify the districts where lynching incidents have taken place. An FIR will be filed automatically under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against individuals who incite people and spread fake news on social media. The state governments must prepare a compensation scheme for victims of lynching/mob violence under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) within one month of the date of the judgment. The cases of lynching/ mob violence will be tried in fast-track courts in each district, and the trial must be completed within six months. The court recommended that the Parliament create a separate offence of lynching.
The Shaheen Abdulla Case
Shaheen Abdulla v/s Union of India & Ors is an important case dealing with hate speech crimes. A Supreme Court bench of K.M. Joseph and J. Hrishikesh Roy directed the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Delhi to take suo motu action against hate speech crimes without waiting for formal complaints, regardless of the religion of the offender. They must ensure that as soon as any speech or action that violates Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) occurs, a case is registered even if no complaint is filed, and the offenders are prosecuted in accordance with the law.
The bench averred that the Constitution of India envisions India as a secular nation, and fraternity, which guarantees the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the country, is one of its guiding principles. There can be no fraternity unless members of different religions or castes in the country can live together in harmony. The court is tasked with protecting fundamental rights and preserving the constitutional values and secular democratic character of the nation, particularly the rule of law. This case set the tone for the judiciary to deploy zero tolerance policy for hate speeches.
Strict notice by Justices Khanna and Bhatti
The violence in Nuh, prompted a slew of petitions to seek action against hate speeches made during the rallies by Hindutva groups. Hearing those petitions, a bench of Justices Sanjeev Khanna and SVN Bhatti made the following comments that have enormous significance in reining the growing climate of hate and polarisation in the country.
Justice Khanna said, “I also went through the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines. I hope they are being complied with. We are very clear. Whether it be one side or the other side, they have to be treated alike. If anyone indulges in anything, which we know as ‘hate speech’, they will be dealt with as per the law.”
The bench observed, “We hope and trust that the State Governments, including the police authorities, will ensure that there are no hate speeches against any community and there is no violence or damage to properties. Wherever required adequate police force or paramilitary forces will be deployed. Further, authorities including the police will take use of the CCTV cameras where installed or make video recordings in all sensitive areas wherever required. The CCTV footage and the videos will be preserved.”
Commenting further, the apex court said, “Why don’t you sit together and try to find a solution. You see, the definition of hate speech is fairly complex and it needs to be ensured that it does not transverse into the area of free speech. There is my 2020 judgement in the case of Amish Devgan versus Union of India, which deals with balancing of competing interests of free speech and the need to prevent the spread of hatred and communal disharmony. There are several other verdicts of the apex court. You see the main problem is implementation and execution.”
Emphasising the need for resolving the issue permanently, the SC bench said, “Everyone will have to find a solution as there has to be some way to deal with hate speeches. Not everybody should be coming to court and there should be some mechanism. We have thought of something and we will let you all know.”
The bench suggested “Additional CCTV cameras should be added wherever the district magistrate or the police commissioner feels it is required. This would have to be decided at the DCP level in consultation with the nodal officer. This would be, by itself, a big deterrent.”
The role of the judiciary is positive and shows how sensitive and serious they are in upholding the values of the Constitution in ensuring the safety and security of all citizens regardless of any class, caste and religious considerations. If only our political leadership emulated these noble values, the nation could have been spared of hate and intolerance. It would have achieved peace and prosperity as envisaged by our founding fathers.