"Hate Speech Is Specific & Cannot Be Equated With Wrong Assertions Or False Claims": Apex Court While Dismissing PIL Seeking Guidelines For Hate Speech

The Supreme Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32 seeking urgent intervention against a rising tide of incendiary speeches, alleging that they endanger state security, promote divisive ideologies, and challenge national unity. It also sought directions for the issuance of guidelines to regulate and prevent the delivery of provoking speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State. 

The petition filed by Hindu Sena Samiti stated that provocative public statements, predominantly by political figures and prominent leaders, have repeatedly called for secessionist actions and armed insurrection, posing a significant threat to the country’s sovereignty and social harmony.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, "We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged references...Further, there is a difference between hate speech and...further the definition of hate speech is specific and cannot be equated with wrong assertions or false claims. In case the petitioner has any grevience, they may raise the same in accordance with law. We make no comments, in either way, in this regard."

During the hearing, Advocate Kunwar Aditya Singh along with Advocate Swatantra Rai appeared for the petitioner.

At the outset, Singh contended, "It is a writ petition in the nature of a PIL. We are seeking guidelines for..."

The CJI said, "That is being examined in that case. We are dealing with it. You have gone all over the space without realising what is hate speech."

CJI Khanna further said, "In none of the cases that we are dealing with, we have issued contempt notices, except one or two applications that are pending."

Singh contended that Shaheen Abdullah is pending. 

"We are not issuing notice," the Bench clarified.  

The PIL filed through AoR Vishal Arun Mishra, highlighted recent instances of controversial statements made by political leaders. Among these is a speech by Sajjan Singh Verma, a former minister, on August 8, 2024, in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, where he allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising similar to the Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi protests, suggesting that public discontent over national policies could lead to an assault on government residences. Additionally, Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) National Spokesperson Rakesh Tikait, while speaking in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, on August 21, 2024, referenced the farmers’ protests and implied that previous demonstrations could escalate into a violent insurrection, further endangering public order.

Citing an ongoing failure by authorities to control the proliferation of such statements, the petitioners referenced Supreme Court orders in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which mandated prompt suo motu action under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 153A, 153B, and 505 against inflammatory speech inciting public unrest.

The petition contended that the directives were either ignored or insufficiently enforced, urging for a stricter approach to prevent provocative rhetoric, regardless of the speaker's political affiliation, to protect the secular nature of the state.

The petition also emphasized the need for mandatory educational programs and orientation sessions for political representatives, aimed at promoting awareness of legal restrictions on public speech. Such training, they argued, would underscore the responsibilities inherent in freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing the balance between this freedom and the need to maintain public order and national security.

"In light of the growing number of provocative statements in similar terminology that threaten the security of the State, it is essential to promote extensive training programs, along with seminars and conferences designed to educate representatives and members from all political parties, organizations, and associations involved in political activities. Such initiatives shall concentrate on fostering awareness regarding the consequences of statements that are detrimental to the interest and security of the State, highlighting their potential to provoke violence and social unrest. By educating public figures about the legal frameworks governing provocative public statements and their harmful impacts on national integrity, it is possible to cultivate more informed political groups that will likely lead to social order and public tranquillity. Such training initiatives ought to foster discussions regarding the obligations associated with political participation, thus encouraging a culture of respect and tolerance," the PIL read. 

The petitioners urged the Court to mandate proactive measures against violators of the Court’s previous directives, emphasizing that unchecked inflammatory speeches could catalyze societal unrest and weaken the country’s social fabric. They also underscored the importance of equal legal treatment, noting the State’s decisive actions in similar cases involving civilians and journalists, contrasting this with leniency towards political figures who, they argue, have used public platforms to incite unrest without facing comparable consequences.

"It is imperative to mention that the State has a sacrosanct duty to safeguard its citizens from unruly elements and perpetrators of vigilantism, with utmost sincerity. The Central as well as the State governments ought to take action to restrict and prevent the dissemination of any inflammatory remarks and/or ideologies put forth by reckless politicians and public figures that tend to provoke mob violence, undermine social harmony and national unity, or potentially threaten public order and the security of the State," the PIL read. 

The PIL prayed for the following:

(a) direct respondents to frame rules, regulations or guidelines to regulate and prevent delivery of provoking speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State; and/or

(b) direct respondents to initiate appropriate action under relevant penal statues against the speakers as well as the organizations engaging in activities that lead to jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the state and act as a threat to the unity and integrity of India; and/or

(c) direction to ensure an independent, credible and impartial investigation into the incidents of delivery of provoking public speeches endangering the security of the state, in a time bound manner, monitored by this Hon’ble Court; and/or

(d) direction for issuance of appropriate directions against respondents for commencement of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971; and/or

(e) direction for initiation of a mandatory training programme for politicians as well as the members of organizations and associations engaged in political activities; and/or

(f) direction to submit an explanation and justification of the statements on secession akin to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh; and/or

(g) direction for filing of an affidavit by Rakesh Tikait undertaking that he shall not address and participate in the farmers' protest

Cause Title: Hindu Sena Samiti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (Crl.) No. 437/2024; Diary No. 47037/2024]