Related articles
In recent years triggering communal violence with hate speeches has been alarming. Under the guise of religious freedom, hate speeches against a particular religion is on the increase in the convened conferences, public forums, street corners, etc. Such speeches that are detrimental are not compoundable offence. It is an offence against the State. State is responsible very much for communal harmony and its upkeeping. Action against such offences have to be initiated by the law and order authority side of the State i.e. executive side. In certain categories of hate speech, despite the gravity of hate against a particular sect even filing of the case itself has been delayed. The apex judiciary had to intervene either suo motu or by petitions filed under PIL during the past. The situation prevails almost against the rule of law.
In an incident, the organisers of a conference had openly stated that a prepared text of an alternative law of Constitution is available with them. Who gave such authority to prepare an alternative to the supreme law of the state? Many of the hate speeches are against the secular fabric of our polity which is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. The scenario that prevails after 75 years of independence is not apt to the hope and trust of the founding fathers of the Constitution.
Recently, the Supreme Court directed the States to register suo motu FIRs on hate speech incidents and proceed against the offenders. There is no need to wait for someone to lodge a complaint.
In order to avoid the name sake registration of FIRs on flimsy grounds which can be easily tackled by the offender’s side, the apex court bench has highlighted the penal provisions under which hate speech offenders ought to be booked. Such penal provisions are promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion (Section 153A), imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration (Section 153B), public mischief (Section 505), deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings (Section 295A) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench ordered Director Generals of Police in the States to inform their subordinates duly about the court order.
The more welcomable part of the court order is that any hesitation on the part of police officers to abide by the order would be viewed as contempt. The order would apply to all hate speech makers irrespective of their religion.
Let the communal harmony sustaining the secular fabric of the polity be upheld!
