SC Points Out Tragic Plight Of Country In Name Of Religion, Directs States To Take Suo Motu Action Against Hate-Mongers

The Supreme Court of India, on October 21, ordered state governments and their respective police forces to take suo motu action against hate speeches without any regard to the religion of the offenders. The observations made by the two-judge bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the country is going through a "tragic" plight with the religious crimes and hate being spread across the community.

Addressing such activities as a threat to the secular fabric of the country, the bench directed the state authorities to take necessary action without waiting for a complaint to be filed. Adding on to this, the court also said that the failure to do so would be considered contempt of court.

The Petition In Talks

The ruling was made in regard to a petition filed by journalist Shaheen Abdullah, who sought stringent action against the pattern of "targeting and terrorising the Muslim community in India." Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Kapil Sibal noted that Abdullah had made several complaints on these grounds, but no action was taken. The inaction from responsible authorities led him to approach the higher court.

Through the petition, he demanded that the offenders be charged under the provisions enlisted in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and other penal laws against the offenders. Abdullah also requested the Centre and States to initiate an independent, unbiased and transparent probe into the many reported incidents of hate speeches and crimes against religious communities.

Building on this, Sibal referred to a recent incident of hate speech given by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Parvesh Verma. Verma, while speaking at an event in Delhi, had allegedly called for a "total boycott" of the Muslim community. Drawing the bench's attention to the statements made, Sibal asked, "What are they propagating? We keep coming to the court. Police are also present in such events."

Through the petition as well, Abdullah conveyed that "The spread of hate towards Muslims and other minorities gets accelerated and becomes all the more far-reaching in its impact as a result of the support, directly or indirectly, extended to radical miscreants, who engage in acts of hate crimes, physical violence as well as communally charged speeches by the ruling political party."

Observations Made By The Supreme Court

Shocked over the incidents and statements presented at the court, the bench called for a widespread crackdown on religious hate crimes reported in the country. They held onto the observation that such crimes and speeches are against the secular nature of India.

Directing the respective state governments to promptly charge criminal cases against the offenders suo motu, the court placed the petition as a "very serious issue." The responsible officials have been warned by the apex court that any delay in filing the cases would invite the court's contempt and lead to severe action.

An anguished Justice Joseph was quoted saying, "This is the 21st century! Article 51A (Fundamental duties) says we should develop a scientific temper. Where have we reached in the name of religion? What we have reduced religion to is tragic."

According to the report by Telegraph, Joseph noted that the country is envisaged as a religion-neutral nation that promotes fraternity that brings in dignity of the individual as well as unity and integrity to the country. Talking further about constitutionally given rights and ideas, he states that a fraternity cannot be formulated unless there is harmony among people from different communities.

These discussions led the bench to unanimously agree that strict action should be taken against all who propagate hate speeches, irrespective of their religion. States have been asked to file a response in regard to the action they have taken so far. They would also have to ensure that hate speech cases are being registered suo motu and report the status of the same to the court.

Also Read: Karnataka Hijab Row: Supreme Court's Two-Judge Bench Gives Split Verdict, Directs Case To CJI