New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said India’s existing legal framework is adequate to tackle hate speech, ruling that there is no legislative gap requiring judicial intervention. The court declined to issue fresh directions in a batch of petitions pending over the past five years.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that defining criminal offences and prescribing punishments falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature, and courts cannot direct Parliament or state assemblies to enact laws. Emphasising the principle of separation of powers, the bench said the judiciary cannot create new offences or widen criminal liability through its orders.
The court underlined that the issue with hate speech lies in enforcement rather than the absence of laws. It noted that adequate remedies already exist under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It reiterated that police are duty-bound to register FIRs in cognisable offences, and complainants can approach senior officers or magistrates if this is not done.
At the same time, the bench observed that it remains open to the Centre and other legislative bodies to consider additional measures, including suggestions made in the Law Commission’s 267th report of 2017, in response to evolving challenges.
The court said hate speech and rumour-mongering directly impact fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The verdict came in a set of petitions dating back to 2020, when concerns were raised over the spread of communal content through television and social media. Early pleas were linked to controversial narratives such as “Corona Jihad” and a programme titled “UPSC Jihad,” whose telecast had been stayed by the court.
Over time, the case expanded to include petitions by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General SG Vombatkere, among others, highlighting speeches at religious gatherings and seeking stronger legal measures.
In 2023, the court had directed states and Union Territories to act proactively against hate speech, asking police to register cases suo motu. Contempt pleas later alleged non-compliance with those directions.
With Wednesday’s ruling, the Supreme Court closed the long-running matter, making it clear that any further steps must come through legislation, not judicial orders.
