In the matter of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India Shaheen Abdullah filed a petition asking for guidelines to stop hate speech that is illegal under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A a, and 506 of the IPC. Without a complaint being made, suo motu action was taken to file cases and prosecute offenders in accordance with the law. Regarding applications submitted to file a hate speech FIR against union minister Anurag Thakur and others. The bench suggested one for each district in response to the petitioners’ suggestion that a nodal officer be appointed for each state. The petitioners also argued that a process needed to be established for removing hate speech from social media.
The Supreme Court extended the reach of its order from 2022, which instructed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases, and ordered all states and union territories to register cases over hate speech even if no complaint is made. The order was issued by a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna. The court issued a warning that late filing of cases would be considered contempt of court. In addition, the court makes it clear that such action must be done regardless of the speaker’s faith in order to maintain Bharat’s secular character as intended by the Preamble.
The bench declared, “Both of us are completely political. Whatever party it is, A, B, or C, we don’t care. The Bench said, “We only care about the Constitution and the laws of the country. For the “larger public good” and to ensure the “rule of law” is established, the court has been hearing petitions against hate speech in various sections of the nation. The matter will next be heard by the Supreme Court on May 12.
Suggestion and recommendation of the court
- In his decision, the Supreme Court ordered the Union Home Ministry to create a thorough chart indicating how states are following the general directives it gave in the Shakti Vahini and Tehseen Poonawalla judgments to stop hate speech.
- The country’s major television news networks operate under a very dim impression in the eyes of the apex court, which claimed that they frequently allow for hate speech and subsequently avoid punishment. Additionally, it noted that when their hate speech is given a platform, politicians stand to gain the most. The National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA)’s operations were also criticised by the Supreme Court, which noted that television networks in India are dividing society because they compete to sensationalise news and are agenda-driven.