Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped the Centre’s inaction on the hate speech issue, while directing it to file its reply within two weeks clearly indicating whether it intends to enact a law to curb the menace, as recommended by the Law Commission.
Highlighting the same issue, the Election Commission had last week told the apex court that it does not have the legal power to de-recognise political parties or disqualify candidates over hate mongering because existing laws don’t define hate speech or hate mongering.
“Why is the government of India standing as mute witness when all of this (hate speech on TV news channels) is happening? Why is the Centre treating this like a trivial issue? Political parties will come and go, but the nation will endure,” said a bench of judges K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy while hearing a batch of petitions seeking to curb hate mongering.
Slamming the news channels that promote hate speech, the bench noted that television anchors allow certain panellists to make vitriolic comments but stop the other side to express their counter views by muting their microphones. The bench said strict action should be taken against erring news anchors and that such people should also be taken off air.
“Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of anchor is critical and it’s their duty to see that hate speech doesn’t occur… Many a time those who want to speak are muted,” the bench observed.
Stressing the fact that there is no definition of hate speech, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing for one of the petitiones, submitted that the people accused of hate speech are now charged under Section 153A of IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence) but they ultimately get off the hook. He added that political parties were being benefited by hate speech. The bench posted matter for hearing on November 23.
Law Commission’s recommendationsIn its Report No 267 tilted Hate Speech, the Law Commission suggested the following amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Insert a new IPC Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) following Section 153B
Insert Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) following Section 505 IPC
Other observations
Hate speech poses complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression
In the US, hate speech is given wide constitutional protection, whereas under international human rights covenants and in other western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and the UK, it is regulated and subject to sanctions
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped the Centre’s inaction on the hate speech issue, while directing it to file its reply within two weeks clearly indicating whether it intends to enact a law to curb the menace, as recommended by the Law Commission.
Highlighting the same issue, the Election Commission had last week told the apex court that it does not have the legal power to de-recognise political parties or disqualify candidates over hate mongering because existing laws don’t define hate speech or hate mongering.
“Why is the government of India standing as mute witness when all of this (hate speech on TV news channels) is happening? Why is the Centre treating this like a trivial issue? Political parties will come and go, but the nation will endure,” said a bench of judges K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy while hearing a batch of petitions seeking to curb hate mongering.
Slamming the news channels that promote hate speech, the bench noted that television anchors allow certain panellists to make vitriolic comments but stop the other side to express their counter views by muting their microphones. The bench said strict action should be taken against erring news anchors and that such people should also be taken off air.
“Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of anchor is critical and it’s their duty to see that hate speech doesn’t occur… Many a time those who want to speak are muted,” the bench observed.
Stressing the fact that there is no definition of hate speech, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing for one of the petitiones, submitted that the people accused of hate speech are now charged under Section 153A of IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence) but they ultimately get off the hook. He added that political parties were being benefited by hate speech.
The bench posted matter for hearing on November 23.
Law Commission’s recommendations
In its Report No 267 tilted Hate Speech, the Law Commission suggested the following amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Insert a new IPC Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) following Section 153B
Insert Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) following Section 505 IPC
Other observations
Hate speech poses complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression
In the US, hate speech is given wide constitutional protection, whereas under international human rights covenants and in other western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and the UK, it is regulated and subject to sanctions
