Reporting And Publishing Of Judgments Part Of Freedom Of Speech And Expression, Cannot Be Taken Away Lightly:...
The topic “SC Cracks Whip On Hate Speech: Buck Stops With Government – Independence of Judiciary, a Question of Law”
1. Background of the Issue
Hate speech in India has been a growing concern as it can incite violence, disturb public order, and threaten social harmony. While freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is not absolute. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interest of public order, decency, morality, or security of the State.
The Supreme Court of India, in recent times, has emphasized that the government cannot pass the buck when it comes to controlling hate speech. Responsibility lies with the government to take preventive action and enforce laws. However, the judiciary also plays a crucial role in interpreting and ensuring these laws are constitutional, thereby safeguarding independence of the judiciary.
2. Core Legal Principle
Buck Stops with Government:
The government is primarily responsible for enforcing laws and preventing hate speech. Authorities cannot ignore incidents citing political or social pressures. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that inaction by authorities cannot be justified when public order or citizens’ rights are at stake.
Independence of Judiciary:
While the government executes laws, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret the law fairly. Any attempt by the government to influence judicial decisions, directly or indirectly, undermines the rule of law. Hate speech cases often require the judiciary to maintain impartiality and ensure constitutional safeguards.
Question of Law:
Hate speech cases often raise legal questions like:
What constitutes “hate speech” under Indian law?
How far can restrictions under Article 19(2) go without infringing free speech?
What is the scope of preventive action by the government?
3. Relevant Case Laws
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: This case dealt with the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized online speech.
Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional because it violated the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Relevance: The Court emphasized that only speech that incites violence or public disorder can be restricted. Mere offensive or hateful speech that does not disturb public order cannot be penalized. This places the responsibility on the government to define actionable hate speech carefully and avoid arbitrary enforcement.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts: This case focused on police reforms and the independence of law enforcement from political interference.
Ruling: The Supreme Court directed structural reforms to ensure that the police can act independently.
Relevance: For hate speech, an independent, accountable police force is critical to enforce laws. The government cannot remain passive; it must ensure that law enforcement agencies act without bias.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: The case dealt with freedom of the press and preventive restrictions.
Ruling: The Court held that restrictions must be reasonable and in the interest of public order.
Relevance: Hate speech restrictions must balance free speech and public order. The judiciary acts as a check to ensure government actions do not violate constitutional rights.
4. Practical Implication
The government must actively monitor, regulate, and act against hate speech.
The judiciary ensures that such regulation does not overreach or violate fundamental rights.
Both branches must work independently but in coordination: the government executes laws, and the judiciary safeguards rights and interprets legal boundaries.
5. Summary
The Supreme Court’s recent stance underscores:
Accountability of Government: Authorities cannot defer responsibility or ignore hate speech incidents.
Judicial Independence: Courts must intervene when government inaction or excess threatens constitutional rights.
Rule of Law: Hate speech regulation is a question of law, balancing freedom of speech and public order.
In essence, hate speech regulation is a shared responsibility: the government enforces, the judiciary oversees, but ultimate accountability lies with the state to prevent harm and uphold justice.
0 comments