The Supreme Court ruled that India does not face any legislative vacuum on hate speech. It dismissed petitions seeking fresh judicial directions and broader guidelines on the issue.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that existing criminal laws are sufficient to address such cases. It said the power to create criminal offences lies exclusively with Parliament.
The Court strongly reiterated constitutional limits. It said courts cannot create offences or expand criminal liability. That power belongs only to the legislature.
Existing Law Already Covers Hate Speech
The Bench rejected the argument that hate speech lies outside existing legal provisions. It said the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and allied statutes already cover acts that promote enmity, disturb public order, or offend religious sentiments.
It also referred to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court said it provides a clear procedure to initiate criminal action.
Police must register an FIR once a cognisable offence is disclosed, the Bench noted. It added that this legal position is already settled.
Enforcement Gaps, Not Legal Vacuum
The Court said the issue does not arise from the absence of law. It arises from weak enforcement at the ground level.
It pointed out that remedies already exist if police fail to act. Citizens can approach senior police officers, move magistrates, or file private complaints under established procedures.
Judiciary Cannot Replace Legislature
The Bench made it clear that constitutional courts cannot compel Parliament or state legislatures to enact new laws.
It said courts can interpret and enforce the law. But they cannot replace the legislature or expand criminal law through judicial orders.
Cases Linked to Events Since 2020
The petitions stem from a series of incidents reported since 2020. These include allegations of communal narratives circulating through social media and broadcast platforms.
They refer to content described as “Corona Jihad” and a television programme titled “UPSC Jihad”. The Court had earlier restrained the broadcast of the programme.
Later petitions raised concerns over speeches at religious gatherings referred to as “Dharam Sansad” events. Petitioners included journalist Qurban Ali and retired Major General S G Vombatkere. A separate PIL also sought dedicated legislation on hate speech.
2023 Directions and Later Contempt Claims
In 2023, the Supreme Court directed states and Union Territories to act suo motu in hate speech cases. It also asked police to register FIRs without waiting for complaints.
Later, contempt petitions alleged non-compliance with those directions. The Court has now closed those proceedings.
Reform Left to Lawmakers
While refusing to issue further directions, the Bench said hate speech and rumour-mongering affect fraternity, dignity, and constitutional order.
It said the issue is serious. However, it stressed that courts must exercise restraint in matters of legislation.
The Court left it to Parliament and state legislatures to consider reforms. It also referred to the Law Commission’s 267th Report of 2017. Most connected matters have been disposed of, while one criminal case remains under limited monitoring.
