The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the Constitution of India envisages a secular nation and directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to take action on hate speeches. (Shaheen Abdulla v. UoI And Ors.)
The bench ordered governments of Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Uttarakhand and their respective police forces to take suo motu action against hate speeches, disregarding the religion of the offenders. The bench said that, in future, state authorities and police have to take suo motu action if someone makes a hate speech, and without waiting for a complaint to be filed and inaction by the state or its police in cases of hate speeches would be viewed as contempt of court.
The bench observed, "The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony."
Facts of the case
The complaint which was raised in the instant writ petition relates to the growing climate of hate in the country. This was attributable according to the petitioner to an unending flow of what is described as hate speeches being made by various persons against the Muslim community. The instances are chronicled, though in an abridged form, in the writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner was one of despondency and angst arising from the perception that despite suitable provisions in penal law being available, there is inaction or rather total inaction.
The petitioners pointed out that there are appropriate provisions such as Sections 153A, 153B, 505, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. He voiced his concern that no action has been taken even after this Court has been approached in the matter and the transgressions have only increased.
Courts Observation and order
The court taking note of the facts of the case remarked, "We feel that this Court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also preserve the constitutional values and the secular democratic character of the nation and in particular, the rule of law.
The matter needs examination, and some form of interim directions."
The bench taking note of the same issued notice to Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Respondent No.3-Director General of Police Uttarakhand and Respondent No.4- Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh stating that they will file a report as to what action has been taken in regard to such acts as are the subject matter of this writ petition within their jurisdiction.
The bench further noted, "Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 will therefore issue direction(s) to their subordinates so that appropriate action in law will be taken at the earliest."
The bench further remarked, "We make it clear that any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of this Court and appropriate action will be taken against the erring officers.
We further make it clear that such action will be taken irrespective of the religion that the maker of the speech or the person who commit such act belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the Preamble, is preserved and protected."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
