A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that hate speech against any community is unacceptable, but cautioned against compartmentalising such concerns along community lines.
Image: IANS
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a petition seeking recognition of alleged hate speech targeting the Brahmin community—termed “Brahmophobia”—as a punishable form of caste-based discrimination, emphasising that the issue of hate speech must be addressed through societal values such as fraternity, education and intellectual development.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that hate speech against any community is unacceptable, but cautioned against compartmentalising such concerns along community lines.
Advertisement
The Court observed that the real antidote to hate speech lies in fostering tolerance, patience and a spirit of fraternity in society. It indicated that with greater social awareness and education, such tendencies would diminish automatically.
Advertisement
The Bench also signalled that courts cannot be the forum for addressing every perceived instance of social discord, particularly where broader societal reform is required.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna questioned the approach of seeking protection for a specific community alone, reiterating that the principle must be universal—no community should be subjected to hate speech. The Court further observed that such concerns, if any, could be raised before appropriate forums or authorities, but did not warrant intervention under its writ jurisdiction.
The petition, filed by an individual appearing in person, had sought directions to the Union and State governments to formally recognise hate speech against Brahmins as a specific category of offence and to initiate legal action against such instances across social media platforms. It also called for investigations into alleged campaigns promoting caste-based hostility, along with the constitution of a commission to examine historical incidents and recommend measures for redress and rehabilitation.
Additionally, the plea sought various directions relating to educational content, memorialisation of certain historical events, and regulatory measures against public officials or organisations allegedly engaging in caste-based rhetoric.
However, after brief arguments, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to pursue remedies elsewhere. The Court allowed the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Advertisement
