The Supreme Court declined to issue general directions on hate speech, holding that creation of offences falls within the legislative domain, while emphasising fraternity, restraint in public discourse, and constitutional responsibility.
The Supreme Court has cautioned citizens, public figures and institutions to show restraint in public discourse.
The Court observed that words carry consequences, especially in a diverse society.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations while declining to issue broad directions on hate speech offences.
Public Discourse Requires Responsibility
The Court said public discourse in a constitutional democracy comes with responsibility.
It observed that individuals, public figures and institutions must remain mindful of the effect of their words.
The Court also appealed to citizens to uphold fraternity and avoid communally divisive statements.
Hate Speech Weakens Fraternity
The Court held that hate speech goes against the constitutional value of fraternity.
It said hate speech weakens the moral foundation of the Republic.
The Bench added that freedom of speech cannot be used to inflame social divisions or promote hostility between communities.
Society Must Protect Constitutional Values
The Court observed that law provides mechanisms to address conduct threatening public order or communal harmony.
However, it said society’s collective constitutional conscience offers a more lasting safeguard against hate speech.
The Court also said preservation of constitutional order is not the State’s responsibility alone.
No Broad Directions Issued
The Bench refused to issue broad directions on hate speech.
It noted that the creation of criminal offences lies within the legislative domain.
The Court also held that there is no legislative vacuum on hate speech.
According to the Court, the existing legal framework already deals with such offences.
Therefore, it left the question of further amendments to the Union and the States.
Court Highlights Fraternity In Epilogue
In the epilogue, the Court highlighted the constitutional importance of fraternity.
It recalled that the framers of the Constitution envisioned India as a secular and inclusive State.
The Court said the framers accepted unity in diversity and rejected the idea that people of different faiths cannot coexist.
It noted that this vision arose from the background of colonial-era communal divisions, Partition and caste-based discrimination.
Preamble Forms Part Of Constitution
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution.
It said the Preamble embodies justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
Together, these values guide the constitutional order.
The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.
Internalising Fraternity Can Reduce Hate Speech
The Court observed that hate speech stems from exclusion.
It said such speech treats the “other” as alien, inferior or undeserving of equal regard.
The Court added that once citizens internalise fraternity, hate speech would reduce.
This applies especially to persons holding influence in public life.
Hate Speech Opposes Moral Fabric Of Republic
The Court said hate speech is not merely improper speech.
Rather, it directly opposes fraternity and the moral fabric of the Republic.
The Bench also held that hate speech contradicts India’s civilisational tradition of inclusivity.
Court Refers To Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
The Court noted that Bharat has historically given refuge to diverse communities fleeing persecution.
It said India gave such communities not only shelter, but also acceptance and assimilation.
The Court added that a civilisation guided by Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam cannot accept exclusion.
Fundamental Duty To Promote Harmony
The Court referred to Article 51A of the Constitution.
It reminded citizens that they have a fundamental duty to promote harmony and common brotherhood.
The Court said this duty must rise above religious, linguistic, regional and sectional diversities.
Hate Speech Is Distortion Of Free Speech
The Court held that hate speech cannot be treated as a simple exercise of free expression.
Instead, it called hate speech a distortion of free speech.
The Court said hate speech undermines the promise of an inclusive and cohesive society.
It also fosters hostility and discrimination against identifiable groups.
No Hate Speech Case Against BJP Leaders
In a connected petition, the Supreme Court held that no hate speech offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma.
The issue related to their speeches made in 2020.
Union And States May Consider Further Measures
While concluding the matter, the Court said hate speech and rumour mongering affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench said the Union of India and competent legislatures may consider further legal or policy measures.
It also said they may examine whether amendments suggested by law should be introduced.
