Supreme Court to hear plea against Assam CM's alleged hate speeches
SC agrees to hear plea accusing Assam CM of hate speeches.
Photo by Portrait Nature
The Supreme Court has agreed to schedule an urgent hearing on a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], accusing Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of indulging in a sustained pattern of hate speeches and seeking the registration of a first information report (FIR) into the alleged instances of hate speeches. The petitioner party said Mr. Sarma, while holding a constitutional office, gave speeches which target, terrorise, and instigate hostility against the Muslim community residing in Assam.
The CPI(M) sought the registration of an FIR into instances of alleged communal speeches attributed to Mr. Sarma and a recent social media post depicting him discharging a firearm toward an animated image of two visibly Muslim men positioned within the crosshairs of the weapon, accompanied by textual phrases like 'point-blank shot' and 'no mercy'.
Key Facts
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] filed the petition.
The petition accuses Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of hate speeches.
The petition seeks the registration of a first information report (FIR).
The CPI has also moved the top court against Mr. Sarma's repeated hate speeches.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Provisions
GS Paper II: Judiciary - Role of Supreme Court in safeguarding fundamental rights
Potential question types: Statement-based MCQs, analytical questions on freedom of speech and its limitations
Visual Insights
Location of Assam
This map highlights Assam, the state where the alleged hate speeches occurred, leading to the Supreme Court hearing.
Loading interactive map...
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
In recent years, there has been a growing concern over the rise of hate speech, particularly on social media platforms. The government has been under pressure to strengthen the legal framework and enforcement mechanisms to effectively address this issue. The debate around hate speech often involves balancing the fundamental right to freedom of speech with the need to maintain public order and protect vulnerable communities.
Several committees and commissions have been formed to examine the issue of hate speech and recommend measures to combat it. The Law Commission of India has also submitted reports on this subject, suggesting amendments to existing laws and the introduction of new legislation to deal with hate speech more effectively. These recommendations are aimed at providing greater clarity and consistency in the legal framework.
The Supreme Court's intervention in the present case highlights the judiciary's continued role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring accountability, especially in cases involving public figures. The Court's decision to hear the plea against the Assam Chief Minister underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough examination of the matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the main issue in the news regarding the Assam CM, according to this article?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea accusing Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma of hate speeches and seeking the registration of an FIR against him.
2. Who filed the petition against the Assam CM, and what are their main accusations?
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] filed the petition. They accuse Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of indulging in hate speeches that target, terrorise, and instigate hostility against the Muslim community in Assam.
3. What is the significance of Article 19(1)(a) in the context of this case?
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions as outlined in Article 19(2), which are relevant when considering allegations of hate speech.
4. What are the 'reasonable restrictions' mentioned in relation to freedom of speech?
Reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech, as per the topic data, include the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, and the security of the State.
5. Why is the issue of hate speech considered important in India today?
There is growing concern over the rise of hate speech, particularly on social media, which can disrupt public order and harm vulnerable groups. The government is under pressure to strengthen laws against it.
6. What is the role of the Supreme Court in cases involving alleged hate speech?
The Supreme Court acts as the final interpreter of the Constitution and safeguards fundamental rights. It can direct the registration of FIRs and ensure that investigations are carried out impartially.
7. In your opinion, how should the government balance freedom of speech with the need to prevent hate speech?
This is a complex issue requiring a nuanced approach. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it cannot be absolute. Reasonable restrictions are necessary to prevent incitement to violence and protect vulnerable groups. The government should ensure that any restrictions are narrowly tailored and proportionate to the harm they seek to prevent.
8. What are the potential consequences if hate speech is left unchecked?
Unchecked hate speech can lead to social unrest, discrimination, violence, and polarization within society. It can also erode trust in institutions and undermine democratic values.
9. What specific action is the CPI(M) requesting from the Supreme Court in this case?
The CPI(M) is seeking the registration of a first information report (FIR) into instances of alleged communal speeches attributed to Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.
10. According to the article, what is the background context of the hate speech issue in India?
The issue of hate speech is rooted in the broader context of freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding Article 19 of the Indian Constitution: 1. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. 2. Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression. 3. The term 'hate speech' is explicitly defined in Article 19(2). Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on this right, including in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The term 'hate speech' is NOT explicitly defined in Article 19(2) or any other law in India. It is a broad term used to describe speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
2. Which of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is/are commonly invoked in cases related to hate speech? 1. Section 124A (Sedition) 2. Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) 3. Section 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Section 153A of the IPC deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Section 295A of the IPC deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Section 124A of the IPC deals with sedition, which is not directly related to hate speech, although it can be invoked in cases where speech incites violence or rebellion against the government.
3. Assertion (A): Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Reason (R): The state has a legitimate interest in preventing hate speech that incites violence and disrupts public order. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
- B.Both A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
- C.A is true but R is false
- D.A is false but R is true
Show Answer
Answer: A
Assertion (A) is TRUE: Freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Reason (R) is TRUE: The state has a legitimate interest in preventing hate speech that incites violence and disrupts public order. This is a valid ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. Reason (R) is the CORRECT explanation of Assertion (A): The need to prevent hate speech is one of the reasons why freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Source Articles
'Point-blank' video row: Supreme Court to hear CPI(M) petition on Assam CM’s controversial gun video - The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear plea against Assam BJP’s ‘communal’ video on X - The Hindu
Assam CM Himanta files ₹500 crore defamation suit against Gaurav Gogoi, others - The Hindu
Assam Congress files police complaint against BJP over controversial video of CM - The Hindu
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moves SC against Assam CM over remarks on Miya Muslims - The Hindu