In recent news, the Supreme Court (SC) of India has engaged in a discussion encompassing the boundaries of free speech and its transformation into hate speech. The court noted that historical facts should be presented without encouraging or revealing any hatred or enmity amongst diverse classes or communities. The discussion was prompted by FIRs filed against a TV anchor who allegedly made negative remarks about sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti on a news show.
Supreme Court’s Reference to Precedents on ‘True Facts’
The Supreme Court underscored the idea that truth or factual information forms a defense in instances of free speech. The court cited its verdict in the 1970 K A Abbas versus Union of India case, which dealt with censorship. According to the ruling, there are no restrictions in illustrating carnage or bloodshed possessing historical significance and such scenes can be acceptable if treated sensitively as part of an artistic depiction of a confrontation. The estimate should come from a healthy and reasonable benchmark, thus accepting historical truth as a crucial factor.
Nonetheless, the SC insisted that historical truths should be communicated without stimulating or revealing hatred between various classes or communities. The court also referenced the ruling in the Ebrahim Suleiman Sait versus M C Mohammed and Another case in 1980, where it was held that truth-speaking did not suffice as a response to the charge of corrupt practice under Section 123 (3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1950. What mattered was whether the communication had inflamed or tried to inflame feelings of animosity or hatred.
Free Speech Empowering the Marginalised
The court acknowledged the potential discrepancy between truth and popular belief. It opined that free speech has often empowered marginalized and discriminated groups, making it incorrect to regard free speech as an indulgence exclusive to the elite.
A Closer Examination of Hate Speech
The Supreme Court defined hate speech as language carrying no purpose other than hatred towards a specific group. This definition necessitates examining the speaker’s good faith and motives. The court declared that attempts at spreading discrimination based on race, religion, caste, creed, or regional basis should be checked and condemned.
The intent of criminalizing hate speech is to protect dignity and ensure political and social equality among various identities and groups, regardless of differences in caste, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, linguistic preference, and more. Despite not having a formal definition in Indian law, certain legal provisions prohibit specific forms of speech considered exceptions to free speech.
The Importance of Self-Regulation
To promote social harmony, everyone is expected to act responsibly by avoiding inappropriate and hateful behavior. This goal is achievable through self-regulation, institutional checks and corrections, or statutory regulations if applicable.
The Realm of Political Speech
Political discourse related to government policies demands greater protection to uphold and foster democracy. According to the bench, dissent and criticism of elected government’s policies, even when deceptive or false, do not warrant penal action. The government should avoid dictating what constitutes truth or falsehood, leaving such aspects open for public discussion.
Free Speech: Intent and Purpose
The Supreme Court stressed that influential individuals and ordinary citizens should not fear retaliation or prosecution while discussing sensitive topics relating to religion, caste, and creed. The crux of the matter lies not in the topic of discussion but in the individual’s intent and purpose.