In Focus by The Hindu In Focus-Parley | Has the Supreme Court been effective in curbing hate speech?
Mar 5, 2026
Haris Beeran, advocate and Rajya Sabha MP with legal and parliamentary experience, and Shahrukh Alam, Supreme Court advocate and free-speech specialist, discuss changes in how the Supreme Court handles hate speech. They talk about legal ambiguity, enforcement gaps, policing bias, differing bench approaches, the need (or not) for new laws, and social measures to counter communal rhetoric.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Hate Speech Works Through Structural Normalization
- Hate speech often operates structurally rather than as direct incitement, normalizing prejudice through casual messages like a cricketer's T-shirt aimed implicitly at Muslims.
- Shahrukh Alam illustrated this with the Yuzvendra Chahal T-shirt example showing how non-explicit messages cumulatively marginalize communities.
Current Laws Are Framed As Law And Order Not Discrimination
- Existing IPC provisions treat provocative speech as a law-and-order problem between equals, failing to address discrimination and marginalization.
- Shahrukh Alam argued these sections presume equal parties and thus miss harms where the targeted group lacks capacity to trigger a law-and-order response.
Use Constitutional Tort To Force State Duty Of Care
- Use constitutional tort claims to hold the state accountable for failing to protect marginalized groups from cumulative hate speech.
- Shahrukh Alam suggested suing the state for abdication of its duty of care and seeking civil compensation rather than criminal sanctions.