SC refuses to issue guidelines on petitions filed regarding hate speech, says – it is the job of the legislature to make laws

The Supreme Court has refused to issue any guidelines on the petitions filed regarding hate speech. The Supreme Court has said that there is already a provision in the law that the Parliament can make more laws if it wishes. These petitions were filed on many matters including Dharma Sansad and inflammatory programs shown on TV, but the court refused to give any order on them.

The court said, our conclusion is that-

  • It is the job of the legislature to decide the definition of crime and make laws.
  • There are still effective laws in place.
  • It is the job of the police to file FIR on cognizable offence.
  • If FIR is not registered then one can approach SP or Magistrate.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, ‘Although we are not giving any direction, we believe that such cases affect social harmony. If Parliament thinks appropriate, it can make more laws on this. All the petitions are being dismissed with these directions.

Also read:- From reciting Kalma to Namaz and Haj… how much leeway do women have in completing the 5 Arcanas of Islam?

The Supreme Court said that the existing criminal law is sufficient to deal with crimes like hate speech and the notion that the crime of hate speech has not been included in the law is wrong. The bench also said that defining an offense is beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary as it falls entirely within the jurisdiction of the legislature.

Also read:- ‘Rules are necessary for every religious institution’, why did the Supreme Court say this in the case related to Nijanuddin’s Aulia Dargah?

On January 20, the Supreme Court had said that it would dispose of most of the petitions related to hate speeches pending since 2021, in which the Court had directed the police to take suo motu cognizance and register an FIR. After saying that the Central Government, Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Government had adequately complied with the court’s directions, the bench had reserved its decision on these petitions filed by various individuals.

(With inputs from Nipun Sehgal)

Source

Leave a Reply