“Hesitation” to comply with the direction would attract proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court against the erring officers, the court said.
Staff Reporter / AMN
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday, October 21 directed police and authorities of states to immediately and suo motu register cases against ‘hate speech makers’ without waiting for a complaint to be filed.
Apex court observed that It is “tragic what we have reduced religion to” in the 21st century and a “climate of hate prevails in the country”.
“The Constitution of India envisages a secular nation and fraternity among citizens assuring the dignity of the individual…The unity and integrity of the nation is one of the guiding principles enshrined in the preamble,” the Supreme Court said. “There cannot be fraternity unless the members of the community from different religions are able to live in harmony,” it added.
The bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing a petition filed by journalist Shaheen Abdullah seeking the top court’s urgent intervention to stop targeting of the Muslim community.
The apex court ordered the state administrations to take suo moto action and promptly register criminal cases against the culprits instead of waiting for a complaint to be filed.This has to be done “so that the secular character of this country as envisaged in the preamble is maintained,” the court said.
The apex court warned that if there is delay on the part of the administration in taking action on this “very serious issue”, it will attract the court’s contempt.
It further said, “The petitioner points out despite various penal provisions, no action has been taken and there is a need to serve constitutional principles. We feel this court is charged with a duty to protect the fundamental rights and also protect and serve the constitution where the rule of law is maintained.”
“Article 51A says we should develop a scientific temper. And where have we reached in the name of religion? It is tragic”, Justice Joseph remarked during the hearing.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, pointed out that neither the administration nor the Supreme Court have been taking action despite multiple complaints raised regarding hate speech; the authorities have only called for status reports.
“Silence certainly is not an answer. Not on our part, not on the court’s part”, Sibal was quoted as saying.
Senior Advocate Sibal presented before the bench certain statements made by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Parvesh Varma. Sibal said that Varma had said at an event in Delhi to not encourage Muslim shop owners and that “their throats would be slit” if needed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioner, told the court that a matter is already pending in the Supreme Court where orders were issued to state police authorities to take preventive action before such hate speeches are made. However, he said, he was forced to approach the court again after another event took place in Delhi on October 9 where hate speeches against Muslims were made.
The bench expressed shock at this and asked whether Muslims were also involved in hate speeches, to which Sibal asked rhetorically whether they would be spared after hate speech. He added that everyone should be dealt with strictly under the law, the report said.
Noting that such statements (such as Varma’s) were “disturbing”, for a democratic country, Justice Roy said that only statements against one community were brought before the court and the Apex Court cannot be seen as an institution to target anyone. “These kind of statements by anyone is condemnable”, Justice Roy added.
The Top court directed the police commissioners to:
File a report each on “what action has been taken” on “the subject matter of this writ petition”.
“Ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place (that spreads hate about a community), suo motu action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law.”
Issue directives “to their subordinates so that appropriate action in law will be taken at the earliest”.
Note that “such action will be taken irrespective of the religion that the maker of the speech or the person who commit(s) such act belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the Preamble, is preserved and protected”.
Note that “any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of this court and appropriate action will be taken against the erring officers”.