SC declines to issue additional directions to curb hate speech, says existing laws sufficient

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to pass additional directions to curb acts of hate speech, saying that existing laws are sufficient to deal with the problem, Bar and Bench reported.

The notion that the offence is unoccupied by the law is misconceived, Live Law quoted a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta as saying. The court added that there is no legislative vacuum in this regard.

The observations came on a batch of petitions seeking directions and guidelines to address hate speech.

In its order, the bench said that the power to create new categories of criminal offences and prescribe punishment lies within the legislative domain of Parliament.

“The constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions,” Live Law quoted the court as saying.

The order said that the court can only draw attention to the need for reforms.

It also noted that the existing framework of the criminal law, including provisions of the Indian Penal Code and linked legislations “adequately addresses” acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments or disturb public order, the legal news outlet reported.

The court further said that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provides for a first information report to be filed in case of cognisable offences. It also provides remedies before the magistrate in case of default by the police, the bench added.

The bench also said that the grievances highlighted by the petitioners did not arise from the absence of law but from a lack of its enforcement, adding that such concerns do not justify law-making by the judiciary.

However, the court said that “issues relating to hate speeches and rumour-mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order”, Live Law reported.

It is open for the Centre and the state governments to consider whether changes are warranted in the light of evolving societal challenges and to bring about suitable amendments, Bar and Bench reported.

The petitions

The current batch of hate-speech cases traces its origins to 2020.

The first one was during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the so-called “corona jihad” campaign blamed Muslims for the spread of the virus in India. Second, a television programme had alleged a conspiracy by Muslim candidates to enter the civil services.

The petitioners argued that such narratives violated “constitutional values of equality, dignity and fraternity”, and contended that the authorities had failed to act against them.

In an early intervention in 2020, the court had restrained the telecast of the controversial programme. It recognised that certain forms of hate speech, especially when amplified through media, could reshape social relations and deepen exclusion, going beyond ordinary free-speech disputes.

Between 2021 and 2022, the matter being heard by the court expanded after a series of religious gatherings known as Dharam Sansads. At these events, speakers allegedly called for violence against Muslims, economic boycotts, armed mobilisation and genocide.

Among the pleas were also public interest litigations seeking legislation against acts of hate speech.

In 2023, the court directed all state governments and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving speeches promoting communal hatred or offending religious sentiments, Live Law reported.

It asked the police to file FIRs without waiting for formal complaints.

Following this, petitions were also filed alleging that the directions had not been implemented effectively.

Reports indicate that while documentation of such incidents has increased over the years, actual police action against offenders has often remained limited. As per a June-August 2025 hate crime tracker report by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, enforcement remained very poor.

In February, the court declined to entertain petitions seeking that a FIR be filed against Assam chief minister and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Himanta Biswa Sarma for the act of hate speech against Muslims.

The petitions seeking action against Sarma pointed to several alleged acts of hate speech by Sarma, and to a now-deleted social media post by the BJP’s Assam unit, containing a video depicting Sarma symbolically firing at images of two Muslim men at point-blank range.

In January, the court hearing another petition stated that matters pertaining to hate speech pending before it since 2021 would be closed. These were matters in which the court has asked the police to register FIRs suo motu.

In doing so, the court said that the parties could pursue other legal remedies. Only one case relating to a 2021 alleged act of hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Noida was kept open to monitor the progress of the trial.

Also read: Has the Supreme Court gone soft on hate speech?