Supreme Court of India
Credit: iStock Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident of hate speeches which take place in any pocket of this country.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked why this court should either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in the country, when there are already legislative measures and those aggrieved can approach the police stations and high courts.
Dealing with an application raising the issue of alleged calls for the social and economic boycott of a particular community, the bench said, "We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in the X, Y, Z pocket of this country".
The court pointed out, there are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures, which are already in place.
The bench, initially, asked the applicant to move the high court concerned with his grievance.
"How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country? You approach the authorities. Let them take action; otherwise, go to the high court," the bench told the counsel, who said the application was filed in a pending writ petition that has raised the issue of hate speech.
The court said that such calls were made by certain individuals. The counsel replied that some public representatives are also issuing similar calls.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said public interest cannot be selective to one particular religion.
"There are hate speeches going on amongst all religions. I will supply those details to my friend (applicant). Let him add that and espouse that public cause on a pan-religion basis," he said.
The counsel said he has brought the matter to the court's notice as the authorities are not taking any action. Earlier, the court had said that if no action was taken by the state, then suo-motu action was to be taken by the police, and if they fail, then contempt proceedings would be initiated.
"No one can be indulging in hate speech -- that is my stand. But while complaining, a public-spirited person cannot be selective," Mehta said.
"Whichever state you have a problem with, you approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief," the bench said.
The counsel also cited another application concerning a minister in Assam speaking about the Bihar election and saying Bihar has approved gobi (cauliflower) farming.
The applicant's counsel claimed that it was in apparent reference to the 1989 Bhagalpur violence, in which several members of the minority community were killed and buried in fields.
The court fixed the matter for consideration on December 9, 2025.