सुप्रीम कोर्ट
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asserted that it is not inclined to either frame laws or monitor “every instance of hate speech,” noting that legislative mechanisms, police authorities, and high courts already exist to deal with such matters.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made these remarks while hearing an application alleging calls for the “social and economic boycott” of a particular community, PTI reported.“We are not legislating in the garb of this petition,” the bench said. “We are not inclined to monitor every small incident that takes place in various pockets of the country. High courts, police stations and legislative measures are already in place.”The judges questioned how the top court could be expected to oversee such incidents nationwide and advised the petitioner’s counsel to first approach local authorities, and if no action is taken, move the appropriate high court.The petitioner’s lawyer replied that the application was filed in a pending writ petition on hate speech and was meant to bring “additional recent instances” to attention. While the bench noted that some of these calls were made by individuals, the lawyer pointed out that certain public representatives were also involved. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, remarked that public interest cannot be “selective” or “limited to a particular religion.” “Severe hate speech occurs across all religions. I will share those details with my friend so that the cause can be taken up on a pan-religion basis,” he stated.The petitioner’s counsel alleged that authorities were “failing to act,” despite earlier Supreme Court directions requiring police to take suo motu action on hate speech. He urged the SG to “remind” states of these obligations.SG Mehta reiterated his stance: “No one can indulge in hate speech. But a public-spirited person cannot be selective while complaining.”The bench maintained that existing legal remedies must be exhausted, adding, “Whichever state you have a problem with, approach the jurisdictional high court for appropriate relief.” It added that high courts are fully capable of addressing such issues when public interest is involved.The petitioner also cited the Supreme Court’s October 2022 order directing three states to take strict action against hate speech. He further mentioned an application concerning a remark made by an Assam minister about the Bihar election and “Bihar approving gobi farming,” which he claimed was an indirect reference to the 1989 Bhagalpur violence.The bench posted all related matters to be heard on December 9.