'Difference Between Hate Speech And...': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Guidelines Against Inflammatory Speeches

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday said that it's not inclined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking intervention against hate speeches or inflammatory speeches by public figures. The PIL alleged that such speeches endanger national unity, and security and promote divisive ideologies. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that there is a difference between hate speeches and wrong assertions.

"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. Further, 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 bench said.

The bench said it was not making observations on the merits of the case. The PIL was filed by ‘Hindu Sena Samiti'. The PIL requested that the court issue directives for establishing guidelines to prevent provocative rhetoric and to require penal action against individuals making statements that could threaten public order or the nation's sovereignty.

Advocates Kunwar Aditya Singh and Swatantra Rai, representing the petitioner, argued that remarks made by political leaders often cross into incitement, risking public unrest. They referenced recent statements by political figures, including former Madhya Pradesh Minister Sajjan Singh Verma and Bharatiya Kisan Union spokesperson Rakesh Tikait, as examples where rhetoric allegedly posed a threat to public order.

In his remarks, Verma had allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising, drawing comparisons to the protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, while Tikait allegedly referenced the farmers' protests in a manner that suggested the possibility of violent insurrection, reported PTI.

The petition said the government has been inconsistent in enforcing legal restrictions on inflammatory speech.

The court, in its directives, mandated swift action against speech inciting unrest under certain provisions of the IPC. The 'Hindu Sena Samiti' had requested several forms of relief, including the creation of guidelines to regulate provocative speeches, penal action against offenders, and an order for mandatory training programs for politicians.