The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it is not inclined to step into the role of a legislative or investigative authority by monitoring every reported instance of hate speech across the country. The bench highlighted that existing legal systems — including police, state governments, and high courts — are already empowered to deal with such matters.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observations while hearing an application alleging recent calls for social and economic boycott of a particular community.
“We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this country. There are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They are already in place,” the bench remarked.
The applicant had approached the top court claiming that authorities were not acting on hate-speech complaints and sought directions in a pending writ petition. The bench, however, asked the applicant to first approach the jurisdictional authorities.
“How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country? You approach the authorities. Let them take action, otherwise go to the high court,” the bench said.
Senior advocate appearing for the applicant insisted that additional instances of economic boycott had been brought to the court’s notice through the latest application. He argued that some public representatives were also making such statements.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in court, cautioned against selective petitions based on religion. “Public interest cannot be selective to one particular religion. There are severe hate speeches going on amongst all religions. I will supply those details to my friend. Let him add that and espouse that public cause on a pan-religion basis,” Mehta said. He added, “No one can be indulging in hate speech — that is my stand. But while complaining, a public-spirited person cannot be selective.”
The applicant relied on a previous Supreme Court direction stating that if states failed to act against hate speech, police must register cases suo motu, failing which contempt action could be initiated. He urged the solicitor general to convey the issue to the states to ensure necessary action.
However, the bench reiterated that the legal pathways were already available and that high courts were competent to intervene where required. “Whichever state you have a problem, you approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief,” the court observed, adding that high courts would “take care of the matter if public interest is involved.”
The applicant also raised a separate instance concerning alleged remarks by a minister in Assam during discussions on the Bihar elections, claiming that the comments referred to the 1989 Bhagalpur violence. The bench took note of the submission and said all pending matters related to the hate-speech issue will be heard on December 9.
