Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy of the Supreme Court have rightly flagged what has become a disquieting routine on the airwaves not only at prime time but almost all the time: Talking heads spewing hate, nutcases passed off as experts as long as they can froth on a Hindu-Muslim issue, each one locked in a race to the bottom, and all this while, anchors provoking, cheering from the studio. Of course, switching off the TV is the best answer to this trash but the bench has a point when it suggests this erodes the social compact, deepens the divide.
Unfortunately, the court’s prescription is problematic. Not only does it overlook the structural forces that enable this hate speech ecosystem, its solution could become more of a problem. Hearing a bunch of petitions that seeks directions from the Court to the government to curb hate speeches on TV channels, the judges have proposed that guidelines along the lines of Vishaka, the SC judgment on sexual harassment at workplace, can be put in place until the state brings in a law to regulate hate content on television. The anguish of the court is understandable but its proposal is fraught. Hate speech has to be read within the purview of Article 19, which safeguards the freedom of speech. In numerous cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the primacy of Article 19 and warned against state overreach (Romesh Thappar vs. The State of Madras,1950 and Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, 2015 among others). It has also defined what constitutes hate speech. Any overarching law or guidelines to regulate speech stands the risk of violating the letter and spirit of Article 19. In a polarised discourse marked by imbalances of power, who will define hate speech?
