The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking measures against inflammatory speeches made by public figures. The PIL, filed by ‘Hindu Sena Samiti’, claimed that such statements threaten national unity and security and promote divisive ideologies. However, the bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, differentiated between hate speech and mere incorrect assertions.
The court stated, “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. There is a difference between hate speech and wrong assertions…In case the petitioner has any grievance, they may raise the same in accordance with law.”
The PIL had requested the court to establish guidelines to prevent provocative rhetoric and enforce penal actions against individuals whose statements could jeopardize public order and national sovereignty. Advocates Kunwar Aditya Singh and Swatantra Rai, representing the petitioner, highlighted concerns that remarks by political leaders often border on incitement, potentially triggering public unrest.
Specific instances cited in the petition included comments by former Madhya Pradesh Minister Sajjan Singh Verma and Bharatiya Kisan Union spokesperson Rakesh Tikait. Verma had allegedly made statements hinting at a potential uprising similar to those in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, while Tikait’s remarks were said to allude to the possibility of a violent farmers’ protest.
The petition criticized the government’s inconsistent enforcement of legal restrictions on inflammatory speech, noting that while similar offences by civilians and journalists frequently receive stringent state action, provocative statements by political figures remain largely unaddressed.
