Supreme Court Flags Police Inaction in Hate Speech Cases, Seeks Compliance Details From States

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted submissions pointing to continued reluctance by law enforcement agencies to act against hate speech.

The Court granted two weeks’ time to parties to file brief notes with clarifications, suggestions and arguments, and closed all matters except one pending case from Uttar Pradesh.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing in multiple petitions including contempt pleas, argued that the issue was not the inadequacy of law but selective enforcement. He referred to repeated instances where hate speeches were delivered by the same individuals across States, with FIRs either not being registered or incorrect provisions being invoked. Pasha also pressed an application seeking the takedown of an AI-generated video posted on X by the BJP’s Assam unit, which allegedly depicted apprehensions of Muslims “taking over” the State if the party lost elections.

Pasha submitted that advance publicity of events often signalled the nature of speeches to follow and that simple directions such as videography of events and maintenance of peace had earlier proved effective. He stressed the link between hate speech and hate crimes, noting that even where FIRs were registered, arrests were rarely made. According to him, fear of acting against persons in authority led the Court earlier to mandate suo motu FIRs, with contempt action for police inaction.

Several counsels echoed concerns of non-registration of FIRs. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal referred to an SLP arising from a Magistrate’s refusal to order registration of an FIR on the ground of sanction, arguing that sanction was required only at the stage of cognizance. Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad submitted that religious figures were increasingly being targeted and complaints were routinely rejected citing sanction requirements.

Advocate Amit Pai cited casteist remarks by a municipal mayor in Andhra Pradesh, alleging complete non-compliance by police.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parekh, appearing for PUCL, urged the Court to build upon the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment on mob lynching, contending that refinements were required to address hate speech.

During the hearing, concerns were also raised about the role of mass media and social media amplification. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde remarked that narratives often travel from local platforms to social and mainstream media, citing examples such as “COVID Jihad” and “UPSC Jihad”, and warned against “punching down” on communities with lower social capital.

On behalf of the Union, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that there had been compliance in several cases and pointed to charge sheets filed and action taken against erring officials in specific matters. Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, for the Election Commission of India, stated that guidelines were in place and being followed.

After hearing the parties, Justice Nath directed all counsels to submit brief notes within two weeks. The Court closed all connected matters except the case titled Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., which will continue to be heard on the next date.