New Delhi, Jan 13.
At least two benches of the Supreme Court on Friday spoke out strongly against hate speeches indicating perhaps a pushback of sorts against such speeches by the top court.
In one case, a bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, sought a report into the police failure to file an immediate FIR in connection with the hate speeches made at a dharma sansad held in Delhi. He was sitting alongside Justice P.S. Narasimha.
“… the case is relating to a serious offence of hate speech. We are told that the FIR was filed after 5 months. No probe till now.
“We are of the view that it will be necessary for the investigating officer to place on record the steps followed to pursue the investigation into the incident of 2021, December,” the CJI said in his order.
CJI SEEKS TO KNOW ABOUT DELAY IN FILING FIR
“Let the investigating officer file the report within 2 weeks.” The CJI was acting on a contempt plea filed by Mahatma Gandhi’s great grandson Tushar Gandhi.
An FIR was filed in the case five months later in May, 2022. “Why do you need five months to file an FIR,” the CJI asked ASG K.M. Natraj, who was appearing for Delhi police.
Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the delayed FIR was violative of court orders passed in the Tehseen Poonawalla case. The 2018 ruling mandates police to file FIRs and chargesheets in a timely manner if calls for violence are made.
Farasat contended that calls for violence were made at the event. The person involved, Sudarshan TV’s Suresh Chavanke, also has a history of being involved in such activities.
But no FIR was registered for 5 months. No chargesheets have been filed or arrests made so far, he alleged. Delhi police still says that investigation was on, he said.
Delhi police had initially stated that “no hate speech was given against any community” in another case pending before the court. An FIR was filed only after the court demanded a better affidavit.
Natraj speaking for the police claimed that there was no deliberate delay and that verifying facts took time. He sought more time to give a detailed statement on the progress made in the investigations.
JUSTICE JOSEPH WARNS MEDIA AGAINST CREATING A FRANKENSTEIN
In a second case, a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, dubbed hate speech a “complete menace” to society. “It is a complete menace and nothing short of it,” Justice Joseph commented. Those responsible cannot be allowed to get away lightly, he said.
Justice Nagarathna lamented the role of the media in fanning hate speech. The media sensationalises things, she said.
“Mediapersons must learn… they are occupying a position of great strength and what they are saying impacts the whole country…. It is very dangerous. They should realise that they have no right to speak their minds whichever way they want,” Justice Joseph said. “They must act responsibly.”
“We need a free and balanced press in India,” Nagarathna said. “Every freedom comes with a duty.”
The bench had at the last hearing demanded a status report from the states in which such alleged hate speeches had been made at dharma sansads. Uttar Pradesh reported a three time increase in hate speeches in 2021-22 over the previous year.
The state said that it had recorded 581 cases on hate speech in 2021-22. Of these 160 cases were filed by police officers. Chargesheets were filed in 280 cases. Uttarakhand said it had so far filed 118 FIRs, 23 suo motu. A fresh status report was sought on these cases in two weeks.
The bench had rather harsh words for the media for creating social divisions in their greed for TRPs. Justice Joseph suggested that anchors who are repeat offenders must be taken off air and the media group be fined a deterrent amount.
“You should not end up creating a Frankenstein which gobbles up everything,” he said, citing some recent instances in which people of one community had mistakenly turned upon others of their own community. “There are important things such as hunger and poverty and we are still on this.”
GOVT BACKS FREE SPEECH BUT SAYS LAWS WILL BE MADE TO DEAL WITH HATE SPEECH
The central government said that free speech must be respected. The media had a self-regulatory mechanism, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj said.
In addition, there were independent professional bodies which oversee their functioning. Ministerial level checks were the last regulatory step.
Responding to a question on who enforces accountability when existing checks don’t work, Natraj said that the government was in the process of framing a law to deal with the problem and all stake-holders were being consulted.
Changes would be made in the CrPC, he said, refusing to go into further details on the ground that a law would be enacted by Parliament. The bench then asked the states to place their stand on a law on the subject and the amicus to come up with draft guidelines by the next date of hearing.
