Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Terming hate speech as a “menace”, and “serious offence”, the Supreme Court on Friday said that it cannot be given any colour.
Lamenting News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NSBAs) for its failure to act against TV channels involved in this menace, the court said that channels are being driven by TRP wherein they sensationalise everything to serve an agenda.
A bench of Justice KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said that anchors who try to create division in society through their programmes should be taken off air.
“They sensationalise certain things. It’s a very powerful medium. Particularly youngsters get glued to it. You create division in society which is much faster than any other medium. You have to be very clear about it. How many times have you taken off anchors? Have you dealt with anchors in a way that sends them the message? If the anchor is himself or herself part of the problem,” Justice KM Joseph, the presiding judge of the bench remarked.
ALSO READ | Hate speech denies human beings right to dignity, says SC Justice Nagarathna
“Media people, they must learn… they have to see that they’re occupying a position of great strength and what they are saying impacts the whole country… it’s very very dangerous. People who watch them may not know what the truth is. They should realise that they have no right to speak their minds in whichever way they want, that’s not freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility,” Justice KM Joseph said.
Justice KM Joseph further added that anchors were conducting programmes “one-sided.” “Problem with freedom is it trickles down the audience. If freedom is exercised with an agenda. If you promote an agenda, then you aren’t serving the people but you are serving some other cause of somebody else. Then there is another aspect of money also behind the channel. They will dictate,” he added.
Criticising the manner in which TV channels reported the Air India pee incident, the judge also said, “You see when TV channels run programmes, they call people names. For eg: The recent pee incident, the kind of words that were being used, he is under trial. Please see that the words you use are right when you’re saying something. Please don’t disintegrate anyone. People have to be treated with dignity.”
Justice BV Nagarathna, also a part of the bench said that we require a “free” and “balanced” press in India.
Clarifying the centre’s stand on the measures undertaken by it for curbing the menace of hate speech, ASG KM Nataraj told that to make comprehensive changes in the criminal laws of the country, to provide speedy justice to all and to create a legal structure, the Govt has initiated the process of considering comprehensive amendments in criminal law. Nataraj further added that suggestions were invited from CMs of state governments, UTs, CJI, CJ of HCs, Judicial Academics, NLUs, BCI, Bar Councils of all HCs and MPs.
The bench at this juncture suggested taking strong action against anchors involved in hate speech. “If you take strong action against anchors, they would know that they will have to pay and they will be taken off air. One problem which everyone faces is that the existing offences are insufficient. To that extent, when you bring that law,” Justice Joseph said.
ALSO READ | Ministry of I&B warns TV channels against gory and disturbing images, footages
Deputy AG for Uttarakhand government had added that pursuant to SCs October 2022 directions of immediately take suo motu action against hate speeches made by people from any religion without waiting for a formal complaint, the state had registered 118 cases of hate speech out of which 23 were suo moto. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Garima Prashad for the UP government added that 581 cases of hate speech were registered out of which 160 were suo moto.
Questioning Delhi police over its delay to file an FIR over the incidents of hate speech in the capital in the Hindu Yuva Vahini event, a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud also directed the Delhi police to file an affidavit on the progress of the investigation.
“Why do you require five months to register FIR? What steps have you taken after May 4? What steps have you made? Who’s the IO? What progress has been made in 8 months? If you register FIR 5 months later & there is no substantial progress 8 months later- how can you comply?” CJI DY Chandrachud asked. CJIs direction had come in a plea preferred by social activist and Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi. For Gandhi, Advocate Shadan Farasat had argued that there was an of call for action of violence of a serious kind in the event. “FIR was not registered for 5 months. No chargesheet has been filed. Directions have not complied. I need action in respect of the incident & not against DGP. From FIR till date it says that “investigation is underway,” Farasat had added.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS IN HATE SPEECH CASE
You should have a graded system even if you are a serial offender. There should be a very hefty fine. They are all in your hands. If you say that you aren’t capable of doing it. It’s a very diff matter. We don’t want any compromise attitude from the Govt: Justice KM Joseph to centre
Justice KM Joseph: Even during the freedom struggle there was religion. But these leaders from various religions shed all their differences, and came together for a noble cause to get us freedom. Today we are fighting about what? People are starving, people are without jobs.
NEW DELHI: Terming hate speech as a “menace”, and “serious offence”, the Supreme Court on Friday said that it cannot be given any colour.
Lamenting News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NSBAs) for its failure to act against TV channels involved in this menace, the court said that channels are being driven by TRP wherein they sensationalise everything to serve an agenda.
A bench of Justice KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said that anchors who try to create division in society through their programmes should be taken off air.
“They sensationalise certain things. It’s a very powerful medium. Particularly youngsters get glued to it. You create division in society which is much faster than any other medium. You have to be very clear about it. How many times have you taken off anchors? Have you dealt with anchors in a way that sends them the message? If the anchor is himself or herself part of the problem,” Justice KM Joseph, the presiding judge of the bench remarked.
ALSO READ | Hate speech denies human beings right to dignity, says SC Justice Nagarathna
“Media people, they must learn… they have to see that they’re occupying a position of great strength and what they are saying impacts the whole country… it’s very very dangerous. People who watch them may not know what the truth is. They should realise that they have no right to speak their minds in whichever way they want, that’s not freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility,” Justice KM Joseph said.
Justice KM Joseph further added that anchors were conducting programmes “one-sided.” “Problem with freedom is it trickles down the audience. If freedom is exercised with an agenda. If you promote an agenda, then you aren’t serving the people but you are serving some other cause of somebody else. Then there is another aspect of money also behind the channel. They will dictate,” he added.
Criticising the manner in which TV channels reported the Air India pee incident, the judge also said, “You see when TV channels run programmes, they call people names. For eg: The recent pee incident, the kind of words that were being used, he is under trial. Please see that the words you use are right when you’re saying something. Please don’t disintegrate anyone. People have to be treated with dignity.”
Justice BV Nagarathna, also a part of the bench said that we require a “free” and “balanced” press in India.
Clarifying the centre’s stand on the measures undertaken by it for curbing the menace of hate speech, ASG KM Nataraj told that to make comprehensive changes in the criminal laws of the country, to provide speedy justice to all and to create a legal structure, the Govt has initiated the process of considering comprehensive amendments in criminal law. Nataraj further added that suggestions were invited from CMs of state governments, UTs, CJI, CJ of HCs, Judicial Academics, NLUs, BCI, Bar Councils of all HCs and MPs.
The bench at this juncture suggested taking strong action against anchors involved in hate speech. “If you take strong action against anchors, they would know that they will have to pay and they will be taken off air. One problem which everyone faces is that the existing offences are insufficient. To that extent, when you bring that law,” Justice Joseph said.
ALSO READ | Ministry of I&B warns TV channels against gory and disturbing images, footages
Deputy AG for Uttarakhand government had added that pursuant to SCs October 2022 directions of immediately take suo motu action against hate speeches made by people from any religion without waiting for a formal complaint, the state had registered 118 cases of hate speech out of which 23 were suo moto. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Garima Prashad for the UP government added that 581 cases of hate speech were registered out of which 160 were suo moto.
Questioning Delhi police over its delay to file an FIR over the incidents of hate speech in the capital in the Hindu Yuva Vahini event, a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud also directed the Delhi police to file an affidavit on the progress of the investigation.
“Why do you require five months to register FIR? What steps have you taken after May 4? What steps have you made? Who’s the IO? What progress has been made in 8 months? If you register FIR 5 months later & there is no substantial progress 8 months later- how can you comply?” CJI DY Chandrachud asked. CJIs direction had come in a plea preferred by social activist and Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi. For Gandhi, Advocate Shadan Farasat had argued that there was an of call for action of violence of a serious kind in the event. “FIR was not registered for 5 months. No chargesheet has been filed. Directions have not complied. I need action in respect of the incident & not against DGP. From FIR till date it says that “investigation is underway,” Farasat had added.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS IN HATE SPEECH CASE
You should have a graded system even if you are a serial offender. There should be a very hefty fine. They are all in your hands. If you say that you aren’t capable of doing it. It’s a very diff matter. We don’t want any compromise attitude from the Govt: Justice KM Joseph to centre
Justice KM Joseph: Even during the freedom struggle there was religion. But these leaders from various religions shed all their differences, and came together for a noble cause to get us freedom. Today we are fighting about what? People are starving, people are without jobs.
