India's diverse culture and demography make Indian society prone to differences, and hate speeches can exacerbate these differences

In a recent order, the Supreme Court directed all states and Union Territories to take suo moto action and register cases on their own against those making hate speeches even if no complaint is filed in that respect. The court further directed that “any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of court and appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officers”. The court directed such an action irrespective of the religion of the maker of such speech, so that the secular character of India, as envisaged by the Preamble, is preserved and protected.

The court’s order is indubitably appreciable and is made with indeed a pious aim to control hate speeches that have the inherent potential to destroy social harmony and may lead to strife and unrest in society. However, given the prevailing circumstances, it is highly likely that such an order may be misused by the political parties to settle scores with their political adversaries. Therefore, this order shall achieve its purpose truly only when the honourable apex court also simultaneously evolves certain foolproof safeguards for ensuring the prevention of misuse of an otherwise commendable and useful order.    

India's diverse culture and demographic makeup make Indian society prone to differences, and hate speeches can exacerbate these differences, leading to social unrest and communal tensions. Events in the past have amply highlighted the fragile nature of India’s social fabric which is easily susceptible to such hate-fraught statements and how the volatile semblance of unity gets instantaneously tarnished resulting in a huge toll on peace and order in society.

The past few years have witnessed a flurry of incidents involving hate statements and speeches springing from politicians, political commentators, religious leaders and even common people. Most of such statements were made in political rallies, on social media platforms as well as in live debates on television channels. Hate-mongering campaigns are rampantly prevalent even on the social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter etc.

Moreover, a plethora of online channels is also becoming major sources of spreading hatred through such venomous speeches as they don’t shy away in frequently inviting people with doubtful credentials to their panel discussions.

The motives for making statements potent with spreading hatred between communities vary as they may be a result of gaining political mileage through polarization, assuaging pent-up religious feelings, asserting superiority over the opponents, and even getting cheap publicity. Political campaigns often see politicians resorting to hate speech to gain votes from one particular community.

There is no doubt that such statements and speeches have an unhealthy influence on the common masses that carry such impressions in their psyche and form adverse opinions about other groups and communities. Given India is a constitutional democracy based upon the rule of law, hate speech must be strictly regulated irrespective of its source, as its untrammelled prevalence is highly potent with the danger of destabilising the national social order.

Past instances of hate speeches have caused violence and sowed deep-rooted hatred in society. For instance, the apparent rift between the Hindu-Muslim communities is based on religion and has caused significant disasters for society in the past.

Therefore, it is essential to have strict laws and regulations in place to curb hate speech and to ensure their indiscriminate enforcement without causing further harm to society, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision on hate speech is a much-needed step in the right direction.

However, given the circumstances prevailing in India, especially in states, where the police frequently behave like in a police state, mostly at the instance of their political bosses, and do not refrain from implicating people under false cases, would not such an order be misused by them to serve personal interests.

In India, it is an open secret that people do not shy away even from filing false and fabricated cases to fulfil their selfish interests, and given the loopholes in the system they sometimes become successful.   

India proclaims the ideal of “non-violence” and “harmony”, but these ideals will be compromised in case of the presence of hatred in the society. The question of how to effectively deal with instances of hate speech can be answered positively, but it requires the collective effort of communities and state police.

Although various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of People Act, 1951 regulate hate speech, separate legislation on hate speech should be enacted to provide a detailed framework to deal with it along with the necessary safeguards to prevent the misuse of the law regulating hate speech. The recent directive from the Supreme Court is a welcome step in the right direction, as it is likely to curb cases of hate speech, but adequate safeguards are also required to prevent misuse of such an order.

(Sidharth Mishra is a Senior Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and Shivani Devadiya is a law student. Views expressed are personal)