Supreme court to have relook at hate speech law

Subramanian Swamy’s case goes to bigger bench but gets bail

GN Bureau | July 2, 2015


#supreme court   #subramanian swamy   #bjp  

While declining to stay case against BJP leader Subramanian Swamy the supreme court on Thursday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of penal provision for hate speeches.

According to the law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or hurt religious feeling or promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. Section 153 deals with provoking people with the intent to cause riot and Section 153A talks about promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. Section 295 makes injuring or defiling places of worship with the intent to insult the religion of any class an offence. Section 298 covers cases of hurting religious sentiments deliberately.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and M Y Eqbal said that it will not go into the merit of individual cases and would decide larger issue of constitutional validity of hate speech laws. Accordingly, it has sought response from the Centre for scrapping the law.

After challenging the validity of the criminal defamation law, Swamy has challenged before the supreme court various provisions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with offences of 'hate speech', saying they were violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Swamy contended in his plea that Sections 153, 153A,153B, 295, 295A, 298 and 505 of the IPC in respect of so-called "hate speech" were used to penalize people for expressing their views even within the bounds of reasonable restrictions and they should be set aside.

"All these sections do not have any safeguards within which a person can publicize his analysis of various nuanced truths of interaction between groups which differ on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community," Swamy said in his petition.

He contended that under the present law, a person couldn't attempt to initiate a public debate to modify people's perception as the person was "chilled or gagged" under the present law.

"By these laws, therefore, not only are such persons harassed by a criminal prosecution which could continue unendingly, but also on that pretext, a vibrant and vigorous public discourse essential in a democracy is gagged. There is also thereby violation of the citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression," he said.

Swamy also urged the court to stay criminal proceedings initiated against him in Delhi, Mumbai, Assam, Mohali and Kerala for expressing views on terrorism which was termed as hate speech under the IPC provisions.

Comments

 

Other News

Ram Nath Kovind to be India’s next president

 India’s 14th president is going to be former Bihar governor Ram Nath Kovind, a dalit. He triumphed over former Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar in the vote count that took place on Thursday.   Kovind succeeds Pranab Mukherjee, who demits office on July 25. He becomes the

At JNU, all that is beautiful and “solid has melted into the air”…

Dear “Professor” Vice Chancellor,    When the clamour is made all around us, and rightly so, about the condition of growing degeneration of quality education in the higher institutions of learning in our country, you have justly – for which you must be

Making words count

In 2016, 38 bills were enacted in parliament. During that year, on average, the time spent on legislative debate (without interruptions) was 23 percent in the Lok Sabha and 16 percent in the Rajya Sabha (calculated from the PRS Legislative Research data).  Time is, however, just one measure

Business goes north

Tyre manufacturer MRF (originally Madras Rubber Factory), which enjoys instant brand recall thanks to the presence of its logo on cricket superstar Virat Kohli’s bat, figures among the most prominent industries in Tamil Nadu. But the state does not figure in its future plans. Like another TN industry

Do you think the Central Water Commission needs to take on the responsibility of irrigation governance?

Do you think the Central Water Commission needs to take on the responsibility of irrigation governance?

Debating the idea of privacy

Is right to privacy a fundamental right? The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on the contentious issue linked to the Aadhaar debate. Here`s how the issue has been addressed by different countries, with the first reference dating to 1890.   The Supreme Court on Tuesday s





Video

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook    Twitter    Google Plus    Linkedin    Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter