SC empowering States and cops to take suo motu action against hate speech is fraught with danger
The Supreme Court’s concern over the increasing prevalence of hate speech is laudable. Such prevalence is the direct consequence of declining standards of public debate. There are politicians and public figures who don’t believe in moderation; they make deplorable statements that end up offending the sensibilities of a lot of people, often resulting in anger, further triggering similar statements. Then there are publicity seekers who make remarks just for the heck of it. The apex court has often expressed its displeasure over obnoxious remarks made in public. On Friday, the SC today extended the scope of its 2022 order, directing all states and Union Territories to act suo motu on hate speech. The order it passed last year was meant only for Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. So, now cops will be duty-bound to act on their own against hate speech, failing which, the court warned, they would be held in contempt. The SC is rightly furious at the growing instances of hate speech, saying that it is “capable of affecting the secular fabric of the country.” The apex court’s concern for decency and decorum in public life is indeed laudable, but there can be unintended consequences. The most important is the further empowerment of government and police.
It is a well-known fact that government decisions, as also police action, are often guided by not just concerns related to governance but also for political purposes. Law and order is under the control of State Governments. There have been many instances in the past in which police have invoked Sections 296A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code to register criminal cases against politicians and others opposed to the respective State Government. A criminal case is not a just threat to one’s liberty; it also means a lot of trouble. One has to engage a lawyer, get bail, arrange a person competent enough to offer a surety, appear personal on every date, and so on. As they say, the process is the punishment. There is even a term for such actions: strategic lawsuit against public participation or SLAPP. The idea is not to win the case but to silence the opponent. The latest SC direction has the potential of increasing the sting of SLAPP. Since police report to their political bosses in their respective states, they would not just listen to their superiors in filing cases against the individuals State Governments don’t like but also not take cognisance of the hate speeches made by ruling party and party functionaries. The rule of law would degrade to the rule of men and women. The SC said that it has been entertaining petitions against hate speeches in different parts of the country for the “larger public good” and to ensure the establishment of the “rule of law.” Unfortunately, the order it has passed may not be able to do that despite the judges’ best intentions.