The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that hate speech is a manifestation of deeper thought processes and stressed that addressing the problem requires correcting the underlying mindset rather than merely regulating spoken words.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Roop Rekha Verma. The petition sought a declaration that public speeches by constitutional functionaries must not infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights.
Highlighting the complexity of the issue, Justice Nagarathna said the origin of speech lies in thought and questioned how thoughts themselves could be regulated. She emphasised that society must work towards eliminating ideas that run contrary to constitutional values.
According to her, merely framing guidelines would not be sufficient unless political leaders and parties actively promote fraternity and exercise restraint in public discourse.
Justice Bagchi underlined that the Court had already laid down principles in earlier rulings, including the Kaushal Kishore and Amish Devgan cases, and raised concerns about whether those directions were being properly followed.
He cautioned against vague petitions and said such matters must be addressed as serious constitutional questions rather than reduced to populist exercises. He also stressed that political parties bear a key responsibility to ensure compliance with constitutional norms.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, meanwhile, observed that any legal challenge on the issue of hate speech must be non-selective and apply uniformly across the political spectrum, instead of targeting specific individuals.
The Chief Justice also referred to a related plea heard earlier in which the apex court had asked petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court instead of directly seeking a court-monitored probe against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged hate speech.
The Bench ultimately adjourned the matter and allowed the petitioner to amend the plea, directing that the issue be raised from a broader constitutional perspective rather than focusing on isolated statements.