Hate Speech: The Supreme Court said on Monday that “in a secular country like India, there is no scope for crimes committed out of hatred on the basis of religion.” The Supreme Court said, “There cannot be any compromise on hate speech in any way.” The court said that if the government understands the problem of hate speech, then only a solution will be found.
The court also said that it is the duty of the government to protect its citizens from any such crime. A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagaratna said, “When action is not taken against hate crimes, then an atmosphere will be created, which will be dangerous. There is no compromise on hate speech in any way.” Can be done.”
Hearing on Muslim man’s petition
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition by a Muslim man who alleged that he was assaulted and manhandled by a ‘screwdriver gang’ of criminals in the name of religion on July 4, 2021, and that the police did not register a hate crime complaint. Did. The incident took place when he was boarding a car from Noida to Aligarh.
have to root out
“Nowadays, there is a growing consensus around hate speech. In a secular country like India, there is no scope for committing hate crimes in the name of religion,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government. No. It has to be rooted out and it is the primary duty of the government to protect its citizens from any such crime.”
We are expressing our anguish – Court
The Court said, “If a person comes to the police and says that I was wearing a cap and my beard was pulled and I was manhandled in the name of religion, even then a complaint is not filed, then a there is a problem.”
Justice Joseph said that the action of every government official should be in accordance with the law. Otherwise, everyone will take law into their own hands. The bench said, “We are only expressing our anguish.”
The bench sat till 6 pm to hear the matter. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for petitioner Kazim Ahmad Sherwani, said that on January 13, this court had asked the state government to produce the ‘case diary’ related to the FIR. This FIR was registered two years after the incident and except the one imposed in it, all the remaining sections were bailable.
Read also: Indian-American woman Apsara Iyer creates history, elected president of Harvard Law Review