Last month, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition seeking criminal prosecution of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over divisive and communal speeches, as well as a now-deleted social media post that depicted him firing a gun towards an animated image of two Muslim men. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that whenever elections approach, the court tends to become a political battleground, and consequently directed the petitioners to approach the Guwahati High Court instead.
Earlier in January, another Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath indicated that hate speech matters long pending before the court since 2021 would be closed. These were cases in which the court had earlier directed police authorities to register suo motu FIRs in instances of hate speech. The bench, however, clarified that the parties remained free to pursue other legal remedies, including approaching the High Courts or seeking appropriate police action.
We discuss whether there has been a discernible shift in the Supreme Court’s approach towards curbing instances of hate speech, and whether legislative reforms may be required to deal with such communal rhetoric more effectively.
Guests: Shahrukh Alam, advocate practicing before the Supreme Court, and Haris Beeran, advocate and Rajya Sabha MP. I welcome you both to the episode.
Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik
Edited by Jude Francis Weston
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
