<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the existing criminal law framework adequately addressed hate speech and that there was no “legislative vacuum” warranting its intervention.</p><p>Acting on a batch of petitions seeking action against those involved in hate speech and the creation of a mechanism to deal with such incidents, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived.”</p>.Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking action on hate speech against Brahmins.<p>The court, however, emphasized it would be open to the Centre and competent legislative authorities to consider whether further legislative or policy measures were required in light of evolving societal challenges, or to bring in suitable amendments as suggested in the Law Commission’s 267th report issued in March 2017.</p><p>“While we decline to issue the directions sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that issues relating to hate speech and rumour-mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order,” Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.</p><p>The court said the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lie squarely within the legislative domain. </p>.'Parliament not bound by Centre's undertaking before court': Supreme Court on reintroduction of sedition law.<p>The bench pointed out the constitutional scheme, based on the doctrine of separation of powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand criminal liability through judicial directions.</p><p>“The precedents of this court consistently affirm that while constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation,” the bench said.</p><p>The bench noted that the existing framework of substantive criminal law, including provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and allied laws, adequately covers acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. </p><p>“The field is, therefore, not unoccupied,” the court said.</p><p>The court added that the statutory framework under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion. It reiterated that police are duty-bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence, and remedies exist in cases of non-registration.</p><p>The bench dismissed the petitions filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Abdul Kuddus Laskar, Peace Party, Firoz Iqbal Khan, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, Jamiat Ulama I Hind, Qurban Ali and others and closed related contempt pleas filed against certain States over alleged non-compliance with earlier directions on action against hate speech</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the existing criminal law framework adequately addressed hate speech and that there was no “legislative vacuum” warranting its intervention.</p><p>Acting on a batch of petitions seeking action against those involved in hate speech and the creation of a mechanism to deal with such incidents, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived.”</p>.Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking action on hate speech against Brahmins.<p>The court, however, emphasized it would be open to the Centre and competent legislative authorities to consider whether further legislative or policy measures were required in light of evolving societal challenges, or to bring in suitable amendments as suggested in the Law Commission’s 267th report issued in March 2017.</p><p>“While we decline to issue the directions sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that issues relating to hate speech and rumour-mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order,” Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.</p><p>The court said the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lie squarely within the legislative domain. </p>.'Parliament not bound by Centre's undertaking before court': Supreme Court on reintroduction of sedition law.<p>The bench pointed out the constitutional scheme, based on the doctrine of separation of powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand criminal liability through judicial directions.</p><p>“The precedents of this court consistently affirm that while constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation,” the bench said.</p><p>The bench noted that the existing framework of substantive criminal law, including provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and allied laws, adequately covers acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. </p><p>“The field is, therefore, not unoccupied,” the court said.</p><p>The court added that the statutory framework under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion. It reiterated that police are duty-bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence, and remedies exist in cases of non-registration.</p><p>The bench dismissed the petitions filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Abdul Kuddus Laskar, Peace Party, Firoz Iqbal Khan, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, Jamiat Ulama I Hind, Qurban Ali and others and closed related contempt pleas filed against certain States over alleged non-compliance with earlier directions on action against hate speech</p>
