The Supreme Court has refused to give any order on defining the definition of hate speech and demanding action in such cases. The court has said that it is not its job to define the crime and decide its punishment. There is already a provision in the law regarding hate speeches. If the Parliament wishes, it can make laws other than that also.
The petitions on which the Supreme Court has given this decision were filed regarding events like Dharma Sansad apart from many inflammatory programs shown on TV. The petitioners had also raised the issue of TV programs like ‘Covid Jihad’ and ‘UPSC Jihad’ and some AI videos being circulated on social media in the court, but the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to give any separate order on these matters.
Keep in mind that in the year 2023, the Supreme Court had said that in such cases, the police should register the FIR themselves without waiting for the complaint. The petitioners said that the police is still showing a lax attitude in such cases.
Also read:- ‘He should be removed immediately…’ UP’s ‘Singham’ IPS Ajay Pal Sharma’s problems increased, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
The court said that there are adequate provisions regarding this in CrPC and the BNSS implemented in its place. If the police station in-charge is not registering the case, then the complainant can apply to the SP. If no solution is found even there, one can file a complaint with the magistrate under CrPC 156(3) or BNSS 175(3).
Apart from new writ petitions, contempt applications were also included in the petitions filed in the court. In the contempt petitions, complaints were made about non-implementation of the old orders of the court, but the bench of 2 judges has rejected all the petitions.
Also read:- ‘Pregnant woman’s wish is more important than the unborn child’, said SC while allowing a minor to terminate her pregnancy at 28 weeks.
The Supreme Court has said that the hearing of only one case will continue. This case is related to the alleged misbehavior with a petitioner named Kazim Ahmed Sherwani in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The court had expressed displeasure last week, terming the attitude of the investigating officer in this case as arbitrary and had ordered to add the correct legal sections in the charge sheet.
