New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 29, ruled that existing laws are sufficient to deal with hate speech and that no legislative vacuum exists that would warrant judicial intervention, declining to pass additional directions sought in a batch of petitions filed over the past five years.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lies squarely within the legislative domain and that courts cannot compel Parliament or state legislatures to act.
“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,” Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.
The bench was categorical that the problem with hate speech in India was not one of legal gaps but of enforcement. “The field of hate speech is not unoccupied. The concerns don’t arise from law, but implementation,” it said, listing out remedies already available under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
It reiterated that the duty of police to register a first information report (FIR) upon disclosure of a cognisable offence was mandatory, as settled in the Lalita Kumari judgment, and that aggrieved persons could approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) or invoke the jurisdiction of a magistrate under the relevant provisions if an FIR was not registered.
Legislative action
The top court, however, left the door open for legislative action. It said it would be open to the Centre and competent legislative authorities to consider whether further measures were warranted in light of evolving societal challenges, including amendments suggested in the Law Commission’s 267th Report of March 2017.
“We deem it appropriate to observe that issues relating to hate speech and rumour mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order,” the bench said.
The judgment was delivered in a batch of petitions tracing their origins to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over the spread of communal content through broadcast media and social platforms. Among the earliest were challenges linked to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV under the title “UPSC Jihad,” the telecast of which the court had at the time restrained.
In subsequent years, the batch expanded to include petitions – among them those filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General SG Vombatkere – raising concerns about speeches at religious congregations, including events described as “Dharam Sansad” gatherings, and seeking broader legislative measures.
In 2023, the court had passed significant directions requiring all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving speeches promoting communal hatred, directing police to register FIRs on their own motion without waiting for formal complaints. Contempt petitions were subsequently filed alleging those directions had not been followed.
Wednesday’s judgment brings that long-running litigation to a close, with the court making clear that further action, if any, must come from Parliament, not the bench.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Mohammed Baleegh | 
