Supreme Court dismisses pleas against Himanta Sarma's alleged hate speech
Supreme Court directs petitioners to approach Gauhati High Court instead.
The Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking a criminal investigation against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma for allegedly giving communal speeches and a social media post. The court directed the petitioners, including CPI(M) and CPI, to approach the Gauhati High Court. The court acknowledged that political leaders should not conduct themselves in a manner that harms the secular ethos of the Constitution.
The petitioner-parties accused Mr. Sarma of indulging in a sustained pattern of hate speeches, including a social media post from the BJP Assam's X handle. The Supreme Court requested the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to expeditiously list and hear the petitions if they are filed before the High Court.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking a criminal investigation against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The petitions alleged that Mr. Sarma gave communal speeches and made a social media post considered hate speech.
The court directed the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court.
The court acknowledged that political leaders should not conduct themselves in a manner that harms the secular ethos of the Constitution.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Constitutional provisions related to freedom of speech and expression, role of the judiciary.
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Representation of People's Act, role of Election Commission.
GS Paper III: Security - Linkage between hate speech and social disharmony.
Potential question types: Statement-based MCQs on constitutional rights, analytical questions on the role of the judiciary.
In Simple Words
The Supreme Court heard a case about whether a politician's speeches were hateful. The court didn't make a decision itself. Instead, it asked the people who brought the case to go to a different court first. The court also said that politicians should act in a way that respects all religions.
India Angle
In India, where many religions coexist, it's important that leaders don't say things that could cause problems between communities. This case reminds everyone that leaders have a responsibility to be fair to all citizens, regardless of their religion.
For Instance
Imagine a school principal telling students not to make fun of each other's religious beliefs. It's the same idea – leaders should promote respect and understanding, not division.
This matters because what leaders say can affect how people treat each other. If leaders promote hate, it can lead to discrimination and violence, impacting everyone's safety and well-being.
Words matter, especially when they come from people in power.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are the key legal provisions related to hate speech in India that are relevant to this case?
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses hate speech through sections 153A and 153B, which criminalize promoting enmity between different groups and making statements prejudicial to national integration. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 also plays a role in preventing hate speech during elections.
Exam Tip
Remember IPC sections 153A and 153B relate to hate speech. Understand their application in promoting enmity and national integration.
2. Why is the issue of hate speech a recurring concern in Indian polity and governance?
Hate speech is a recurring concern because India is a diverse country, and such speech can incite violence, discrimination, and social unrest. It challenges the secular fabric of the Constitution and can disrupt public order. The rise of social media has further amplified the problem, making it easier to spread hateful content rapidly.
Exam Tip
Consider the impact of social media and political polarization when analyzing the issue of hate speech.
3. What is the significance of the Supreme Court directing the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court in this case?
The Supreme Court's direction indicates a preference for the High Court to address the matter first, respecting the hierarchy of courts. It suggests the Supreme Court believes the High Court is competent to handle the case initially. This also allows the Supreme Court to retain appellate jurisdiction should the matter require further review.
Exam Tip
Understand the concept of the hierarchy of courts and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
4. How does the current debate around hate speech impact the secular ethos of the Indian Constitution?
Hate speech directly undermines the secular ethos of the Constitution by promoting division and discrimination based on religion, caste, or other identities. It violates the principles of equality and fraternity, which are fundamental to secularism. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that political leaders should not conduct themselves in a manner that harms the secular ethos of the Constitution.
Exam Tip
Relate the issue of hate speech to fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy, especially those related to equality and fraternity.
5. What considerations should guide a political leader's speech in a diverse society like India, according to the Supreme Court's observation?
According to the Supreme Court, political leaders should not conduct themselves in a manner that harms the secular ethos of the Constitution. Their speech should promote harmony, avoid inciting hatred, and uphold the principles of equality and non-discrimination. They should be mindful of the potential impact of their words on different communities.
Exam Tip
Focus on the ethical responsibilities of political leaders in maintaining social harmony and upholding constitutional values.
6. What are the potential consequences for a political leader found guilty of hate speech in India?
A political leader found guilty of hate speech can face criminal charges under the Indian Penal Code, including imprisonment and fines. They may also face disqualification from holding public office under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The specific consequences depend on the nature and severity of the hate speech.
Exam Tip
Note the intersection of criminal law and election law in addressing hate speech by political leaders.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the recent Supreme Court's decision on the hate speech case against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma: 1. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking a criminal investigation against Himanta Biswa Sarma. 2. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court. 3. The petitioner-parties accused Mr. Sarma of indulging in a sustained pattern of hate speeches, including a social media post from the BJP Assam's X handle. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.1 and 3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is CORRECT: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking a criminal investigation against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma for alleged hate speech. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court, not the Delhi High Court. Statement 3 is CORRECT: The petitioner-parties accused Mr. Sarma of indulging in a sustained pattern of hate speeches, including a social media post from the BJP Assam's X handle.
2. Which of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code (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?
- A.Section 124A
- B.Section 153A
- C.Section 295A
- D.Section 499
Show Answer
Answer: B
Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (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 124A deals with sedition. Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Section 499 deals with defamation.
3. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
- A.It provides for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures.
- B.It specifies the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses.
- C.Section 125 of the Act prohibits promoting enmity between classes in connection with elections.
- D.It empowers the Election Commission of India to disqualify a candidate found guilty of hate speech for life.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statements A, B, and C are correct regarding the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the Act does not explicitly empower the Election Commission of India to disqualify a candidate found guilty of hate speech for life. The disqualification period is typically for a specified number of years, not for life.
Source Articles
Himanta Sarma’s Hate Politics and the Making of an Exclusionary Assam - Frontline
Himanta hate speech video: Supreme Court asks petitioners to approach Gauhati High Court - The Hindu
Himanta firearm video: Supreme Court to hear pleas against Assam CM on Feb 16 - The Hindu
Himanta Sarma’s Hate Speech on 'Miya' and the Supreme Court’s Silence - Frontline
Hate speech cannot be equated with a false claim or a wrong assertion: Supreme Court - The Hindu