Opinion Words that wound
Supreme Court is right to ask for clarity on what constitutes hate speech.
Supreme Court is right to ask for clarity on what constitutes hate speech.
Responding to a public interest petition that sought curbs on hate speech in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre’s legal experts to identify exactly what qualified as such. While the Constitution places reasonable restrictions on free speech, and sections of the penal code and the CrPC forbid words, written or spoken, that promote ill-will between religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste groups or communities, there is no specific detail in any statute on what kind of speech crosses the line.
This attempt to bound the limits of hate speech is significant. Earlier, on March 3, the court had refused to order the Election Commission to restrict hate speech, saying that 128 crore people could have 128 crore views, and that “all shades of opinion” should be made available to the public, who could then make up their own minds.
Speech can have violent, tragic effects, and hate speech legislation exists in most free societies, including the UK, Canada, Germany, Denmark and Australia. The US is an exception, in the belief that even the most despicable views should not be silenced, with very narrow exceptions like slander, child pornography and so on. But even in the US, many legal scholars have argued that hate speech poses great harm to the lives, dignity and reputation of minority groups.
Given how diverse and unequal India is, laws that prohibit abuse and psychological undermining of vulnerable groups are certainly necessary — but the problem is that these laws are used to suppress any unwelcome opinion, criticism, even scholarship and humour. Rather than controlling incitement or intimidation, they have created a climate of self-censorship and made it difficult to suggest that some words, no matter how obnoxious, should be countered with other words.
Instead of understanding that hate speech is most condemnable when there is a power differential and when it threatens social inclusion, these laws have chilled free
In such a context, the Supreme Court’s refusal to come down heavily on political speech and its belief in the maturity of the public is a refreshing change. It is right to ask the Law Commission to define hate speech more tightly and to reduce arbitrariness in the way it is applied.
Share
