The Supreme Court once again made strong remarks on the politics of religion during the hearing on the hate speech case. The Supreme Court has said that there is a need to separate religion from politics to get rid of hate speech. Till the time politics is not separated from religion, we will not be able to get rid of hate speech. Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagaratna were hearing the case.
The Supreme Court said that the politicians who are there are using religion and this is the reason for the biggest problem. Religion and politics are linked in our country. This is why hate speech is being encouraged.
Justice BV Nagaratna, citing the example of former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said that remember Vajpayee and Nehru, to listen to whom people traveled far- Used to collect from the drawer. Where are we going? Justice KM Joseph said that everyday hate statements are being made on TV and in public forums.
Which matter was being heard ?
Shaheen Abdullah, while filing a petition in the Supreme Court, had said that after the order of the Supreme Court, the Maharashtra government has failed to curb the hate speech of Hindu organisations. The petitioner sought contempt action against the Maharashtra government.
According to media reports, in the last hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer Nizamuddin Pasha told the court that the Maharashtra Police should take action against a Hindu organization. Instructions were given to do so, but despite this no action has been taken so far. The organization has organized more than 50 rallies in the last four months.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has reprimanded the statements of politicians and TV channels. First of all, let’s talk about the hate speech of the leaders, about which the Supreme Court has commented.
Five months ago, the Supreme Court had expressed objection to the statement of the leaders
Supreme Court judges Justice KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy made strong comments on Shaheen Abdullah’s petition five months ago regarding hate speech. Shaheen Abdullah in his petition sought to stop the practice of intimidation of Muslims in India.
While hearing the matter, Justice KM Joseph had said that this is the 21st century and we Where have you come in the name of religion? Instead of being a secular and tolerant society, we all are creating a hate society. The social fabric is disintegrating. Today we have belittled God so much that controversies are taking place in his name.
Notice was sent to Delhi, UP and Uttarakhand police
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Delhi, UP and Uttarakhand police and ordered them to take action against such speeches. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy had said in its order that it is the responsibility of the court to intervene in such matters.
The statement of which leader is going on in court The hearing
The matter was about the speech of BJP MP Pravesh Verma. In the hearing, the bench had said that it has been said in the speech – if needed, we will cut his throat. Justice Hrishikesh Roy had said that such statements are very disturbing in a country where democracy and religion are neutral.
A look at the controversial statements of leaders
- BJP national spokesperson Nupur Sharma – made controversial remarks on Prophet Mohammad during a TV debate.
- Union minister Anant Kumar Hegde – compared Islam with terrorism.
- Bihar BJP leader and Union Minister Giriraj Singh- Had made a statement that if the country was divided on the basis of religion, today one would not have to hear abuses.
- Former BJP MP Vinay Katiyar – If Muslims do not stop cow slaughter, then the incidents of mob lynching will increase.
- BJP has put 38 leaders in the category of statements hurting religious beliefs. < /li>
li>
Know when the Supreme Court told news channels as a means of spreading hatred
In September 2022, the Supreme Court banned TV news The debate on the channel was said to be the biggest means of spreading hate speech. A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Rai questioned the Center on its intention to frame guidelines to regulate TV debates.
The court said that freedom of expression is necessary, but hate speech on TV is not allowed. Freedom of speech cannot be given. A TV channel in the United Kingdom was fined heavily for doing so.
The court expressed its displeasure over the debate content of TV channels and questioned the central government and said that the government was mitigating She is watching all this by becoming and is judging this matter as ‘very small’. The court had asked whether the government wants to bring a law on this issue or not?
A bench of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy on hate speech-filled talk shows and reports telecast TV channels were strongly reprimanded. The bench had said that it is the responsibility of the anchor to stop someone from speaking hate speech. The bench also asked the question that Why has the government remained mute spectator in this matter, is it a minor issue?
Earlier when the court pulled up the news channel
In the year 2020, Justice Chandrachud had ordered a ban on the “UPSC Jihad” program of Sudarshan News Channel. Justice Chandrachud had said that we have to interfere in this matter because the government has not taken any action on it. This may be a right time when we should move towards self-regulation.
Recall that the High Court had already banned the broadcast of Sudarshan News’ program ‘UPSP Jihad Ke’. After this, on September 10, 2020, the Central Broadcasting Ministry had given permission to Sudarshan News to telecast the programme. Only its broadcast can be banned.
What is the definition of hate speech?
Hate speech in the Indian Penal Code There is no clear definition. Now the government is working towards suggesting reforms to define such language. For this, the Union Home Ministry is considering setting up a committee on reforms in criminal laws.
Hate speech generally refers to the use of words in speeches that are intended to harm a particular group (caste, religion, etc.). ) is to create hatred towards. This speech can be unintentional or intentional, but it has the potential to result in violence.
The 267th report of the Law Commission of the country defines hate speech on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual, Hate against religious belief
Why hate speech is delivered
People’s stereotypes behind hate speech Thinking is believed to be responsible to a great extent. Such people believe that a class or group of people is a threat to them or that class is inferior to them. That’s why their rights should be reduced. The stubbornness of any one ideology is also promoting hate speech.
At present, action is being taken against those who give hate speech under 7 different laws
There are 7 types of laws used to deal with hate speech in the country, but none of these has defined hate speech. This is the reason why social media platforms are not stopping their users from speaking arbitrary language.
Existing provisions
1. Indian Penal Code
Section 124A (sedition): has been struck down.
Section 153A: Religion , enmity on grounds of race
Section 153B: Statement made against national integration.
295A & 298: Hurting religious feelings .
Section 505 (1) and (2) :Promoting rumor or hatred.
2. Representation of the People Act
- Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 bars a person guilty of misuse of freedom of expression from contesting elections.
- RPA’s Sections 123(3A) and 125: Prohibits promoting enmity on grounds of race, religion, community, caste or language in the context of elections.
Definition of heat speech is fixed in these countries
European countries: Hate speech is the justification of hate speech or hate speech based on intolerance.
America: Here the first amendment of the constitution itself prevents the parliament from making laws to curb free expression. But, the order of the Supreme Court is that ‘degenerate expression’ Laws to curb will be considered constitutional.
Get the more latest India news updates