In absence of Legislation it cannot define Hate Speech

Ukkash F | Sastra School of Law, Tamil Nadu | 30th May 2020

Campaign Against Hate Speech An Unregistered Organisation Vs State Of Karnataka 

The Court in hearing a writ petition filed by an unregistered organization, Campaign against hate speech dismissed the writ petition citing that there has no sufficient legislation on hate speech and observed that it would not be proper for the Court to make substantive analysis on the same.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The PIL was filed to direct the State to take action against the said politicians and media houses on spreading hate speeches. Also, to take out the inflammatory videos and reports targeting a specific community. Amidst the Corona outbreak, there have been inciteful and irresponsible speeches and reports made by certain political personalities and also in media accusing certain sections of the society.

ISSUE

1. Is there any sufficient legislation against hate speech and does the Court have the power to make substantive analysis?

COURT’S OBSERVATION

The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner cited the irresponsible and inciteful speeches by politicians and media houses during the pandemic. He submitted that the said acts of inciteful speech and utterances in media, social media as well as by the political personalities amounts to hate speech. 

The Respondent Counsel submitted that if any of the complainants have filed complaints by following the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C,) and the same have not been acted upon, they have a remedy under the provisions of Cr.P.C. itself. Further, this Court cannot, in public interest litigation, entertain the prayers sought for by the petitioners, when the complainants, if any, are not before this Court.

In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe has categorically stated that,

“If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, the proper investigation has not been done, then the remedy of an aggrieved person is not to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but, he has to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.” 

The petitioners have not followed the due procedure observed in the Cr.P.C. but the petitioners have stated that they have filed this writ petition in the public interest. Hence, it is understood that these petitioners are not complainants. But, in the present case, the petitioners have contended that they have filed complaints themselves. So they could not have filed the writ petition and it is not maintainable.

CONCLUSION

The Bench observed that there is already a voluminous bundle of rights and remedies created in various enactments for aggrieved persons to complain against what they consider to be hate speech. Moreover, the Central Government has formed the aforesaid guidelines which have been issued to the Private Satellites TV Channels and these are also guidelines on Communal Harmony and other such guidelines to promote Communal Harmony in the States and Union territories of India. Moreover, the court suggested that there is no precise legislative definition of what ‘hate speech’ is. It is for the Parliament to legislate on that aspect of the matter.