Supreme Court on Wednesday observed it “was necessary” to issue notice of contempt against states that failed to act against hate speech. It was important for the message to go that the Supreme Court has passed orders that are defined and the same must be implemented, the bench observed.
The Supreme Court's observation comes a day after the bench said, "Abjuring hate speech is a fundamental requisite for the maintenance of communal harmony."
Today, while taking a dim view of hate speech spouted at rallies in Maharashtra, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathana said the state was “impotent and powerless” for not taking action in time.
Why do we even have a State if it is staying silent? Justice KM Joseph said.
One such rally took place in Mumbai, where the Muslim community has been targetted on issues like "Land Jihad", "Love Jihad" etc which the right-wing claim is a conspiracy by the minority to lure and convert Hindu women or take away their land.
The top court was lamenting on the spread of hate speech during political rallies while hearing a contempt plea filed by Shaheen Abdullah over news reports that in the past four months, at least 50 rallies were held in Maharashtra where hate speeches were allegedly made.
Justice Joseph pointed out that the moment politics and religion are segregated, this (hate speech) will end. When politicians stop using religion... all this will stop. We can only say, it depends on you if will listen or not, he added.
The bench which also comprised Justice BV Nagarathana directed the Maharashtra government to respond to the contempt plea filed against it over the state's failure to control hate speeches at rallies by Hindu organisations despite court orders.
Meanwhile, the top court also admitted a plea filed by the Hindu Samaj who sought action against hate speech made against Hindus.
Where is the tolerance?
Justice Joseph said dignity (of an individual) was the most important thing. “Some statements are made like go to Pakistan… they (those who migrated post-1947 partition) are actually the ones who had chosen this country. They are your brothers and sisters,” the judge said referring to communal claims made at rallies organized by Hindu organisations.
“Can anyone in a rally under your umbrella break the law of the land?” Justice Joseph added. “We were all handed down a legacy. What is tolerance? Tolerance is not putting up with somebody but accepting the differences…,” he said.
Expressing her anguish, Justice Nagarathna said “fringe elements from all sides are making these statements. Are we now going to take contempt of court action against all Indians? Intolerance comes from a lack of knowledge and education. How much contempt after contempt we will see. How will the Supreme Court deal with all this? Why cannot the citizens of this country take a pledge to not vilify others and what kind of pleasure are we deriving?” she said.
“Where are we going? We had orators like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. People from rural areas used to come to listen to them. Now, people who have no stuff to say are making these speeches,” the judge added.
“We are sorry to say that cracks are now coming in the sense of fraternity,” Justice Nagarathana said when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that Abdulla, the petitioner, was selective in her outrage and ignoring instances of hate speeches made by Muslim leaders.
