Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Guidelines to Curb Provocative Speech by Political Leaders

Add a comment

On November 14, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Hindu Sena Samiti through its President, Surjeet Singh Yadav. The petition called for guidelines to prevent political leaders from making provocative statements, which, according to the petition, threaten state sovereignty and security. The bench, composed of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, declined to entertain the plea, citing an ongoing caseā€”Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors.ā€”where hate speech regulations are already under consideration.

In Shaheen Abdullah, the Court previously ordered that states should proactively address hate speech crimes without waiting for complaints, and prosecute offenders irrespective of their religion. The Court warned that any delay in taking action would be treated as contempt of court. Similarly, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, the Court instructed all States and Union Territories to automatically register FIRs for hate speech crimes (falling under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code) without requiring a formal complaint.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked that the petition misunderstood the nature of hate speech, asserting that hate speech cannot be equated with incorrect statements or false claims. The petition referred to recent remarks by political figures, including statements by Congress MLA Sajjan Singh Verma and National Spokesperson of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Rakesh Tikait, as examples of provocative speech. However, the Court clarified that such statements, even if controversial, do not necessarily qualify as hate speech.

The bench, in dismissing the PIL, stated, ā€œWe are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged utterances over a long period of time. Further, the offence of hate speech is specific and cannot be equated with wrong assertions or false claims.ā€ The Court suggested that if the petitioners had specific grievances, they could pursue them through legal channels without implying an equivalency between hate speech and other types of statements.

Reliefs Sought by Petitioners in the PIL

The petitioners sought the following directives:

  1. Guidelines for Provocative Speech: Establish regulations to curb public statements endangering state sovereignty and security.
  2. Action Against Speakers and Organizations: Initiate actions under penal statutes against individuals and organizations making provocative statements.
  3. Investigation of Provocative Speech: Conduct impartial investigations into such incidents, overseen by the Supreme Court.
  4. Contempt Proceedings: Initiate contempt proceedings for non-compliance with hate speech regulations.
  5. Training Programs: Mandate training for politicians and political organizations to understand legal limitations on speech.
  6. Clarification on Secessionist Comments: Demand explanations from speakers on remarks referencing the situations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
  7. Undertaking from Rakesh Tikait: Require an affidavit from Rakesh Tikait committing to avoid involvement in future farmers’ protests.
  8. Additional Reliefs: Other orders deemed appropriate by the Court.

The petition was filed by Kunwar Aditya Singh, with Advocate Swatantra Rai and assistance from Advocate-on-Record Vishal Arun Mishra.

Case Details

Case Title: Hindu Sena Samiti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 437/2024

Leave a comment