‘No Hate Speech Against Any Community’: Supreme Court Declines Plea To Recognise ‘Brahmophobia’ As Punishable Offence

The bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan initially dismissed the petition after a brief hearing. However, the petitioner, Mahalingam Balaji, who appeared in person, subsequently sought permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach an appropriate forum. The Court allowed the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

“The petitioner who has appeared in person has sought permission to withdraw this petition. His submission is placed on record. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn,” the Court recorded in its order.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna emphasised that hate speech in any form must be discouraged, irrespective of the community targeted. She observed that societal progress, education, and adherence to constitutional values such as fraternity are essential to curb such tendencies.

“We don’t want hate speech against any community. It depends on education, intellectual development, tolerance, and patience. Once everyone follows fraternity, automatically there will be no hate speech,” she remarked.

The petition had sought wide-ranging directions from the Court, including a declaration that hate speech against the Brahmin community constitutes a specific form of caste-based discrimination requiring penal consequences. It also urged the Court to direct Union and State governments to take prompt legal action against such speech across mainstream and social media platforms.

Additionally, the petitioner called for a comprehensive investigation by central and state agencies into what he described as coordinated campaigns: both domestic and foreign, aimed at inciting caste-based hatred or violence against Brahmins.

The plea further sought the constitution of a high-level “truth and justice commission” to investigate historical events, including what the petitioner referred to as the “1948 Maharashtra Brahmin genocide” and the “1990 Kashmiri Pandit genocide.” It also sought rehabilitative, economic, and educational measures for affected individuals and their descendants.

Among other prayers, the petition urged the inclusion of chapters on alleged historical atrocities in school curricula, including references to the 1984 anti-Sikh violence and the 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, and the establishment of publicly funded memorial museums. It also proposed the declaration of January 19 as “Genocide Victims Solidarity Day.”

Further, the petitioner sought directions for disqualification of public officials found engaging in caste-based hate speech, and for non-governmental organisations to adopt codes of conduct prohibiting such speech. He also called for the revision of educational material to remove what he described as “misleading assertions portraying Brahmins negatively,” and for the Union government to publish a white paper addressing discrimination faced by the community.

During the proceedings, Balaji argued that there was selective enforcement of hate speech laws and alleged that Brahmins were being targeted through organised campaigns. He also raised concerns about what he termed as “genocide denial” in relation to the Kashmiri Pandit exodus.

The Bench, however, questioned the premise of seeking protection for a specific community alone. Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the law must operate uniformly and that no community should be singled out for exclusive protection against hate speech.

The Court indicated that while concerns regarding hate speech and social harmony are valid, the appropriate remedies lie outside the scope of judicial intervention in the manner sought. It suggested that such issues could be taken up before appropriate forums or addressed through policy measures.

The Court also reiterated the importance of promoting constitutional values, particularly fraternity, as a means to counter divisive narratives and ensure social cohesion.

With these observations, the Supreme Court closed the matter, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies in accordance with law.