In a PIL pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner(s), Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Versus Union of India has demanded that delivering a hate speech by a political or religious leader should be disallowed under law and punished if indulged in. The Apex Court has examined the legal aspects of the case and how it is being dealt with in various states in the country. In the case of Ranbir Penal Code being in force in J&K State, the Apex Court has found that though Sections 295-A and 298 of RPC pertain to hurting religious beliefs yet the same don’t specifically cover the aspect of hate speeches by the politicians and religious leaders, which has become a matter of concern. The Supreme Court has made J&K and several other States as parties in the PIL.
With falling standards of national politics and many aberrations creeping into our democratic system, particularly when political campaigning gets heightened around elections to legislatures or the Parliament, many politicians are carried away by emotions in a bid to denigrate their opponents and their political organizations. At times they stoop to the level of indulging in personal vendetta and deliver hate speeches to malign their opponents or those who confront them on varies issues. Obviously, their hate speeches infuriate the audience, and, in all probability, this becomes the source of fomenting distrust and disturbance among the voters and the public in general. For a democratic dispensation this is very harmful and does not at all serve the purpose of people voting freely and fearlessly to chose their representatives.
As far as religious leaders are concerned, it has been found that some of them having grown in closed culture and social environment, have become as conservative and intolerant as to deliver hate speeches against other religious denominations. They think that they serve the interest of a particular religion to which they adhere. The fact is that democracy gives freedom to anybody to follow and propagate his or her religion as it is a right given by the constitution. But the constitution does not allow anybody to embark on a hate campaign against other religions. In a country like India, where we have citizens of almost all religious denominations living together in harmony for centuries at end, the State cannot allow any religious leader or preacher to indulge in hate speech against other religions. We are aware that in contemporary times, there has been spurt in demonstration of religious fervour and large numbers of people are pandering to acute religious sensitivity. In falling victim to religious euphoria, they compete with others in motivating their audiences to their line of thinking. This naturally causes cracks in otherwise peaceful coexistence among the people of different faiths.
A democratic and secular state cannot allow leaders of any hue to indulge in hate speeches. It vitiates the atmosphere and deprives people of casting their vote out of free will and without bias. The future of the country is involved because it is the kind of leadership that we are sending to the top to govern the state.
The Apex Court has very rightly asked the State Government to examine the corpus of Ranbir Penal Code and suggest whether there is any clause that covers the unwanted practice of delivering of hate speeches by political or religious leaders. The General Administrative Department has found that the RPC or election laws don’t have any clause that covers recognition of hate speech a crime and cognizable under law. As such amendment to the RPC shall have to be brought in. We understand that the Government has set the process in motion and such new enactment will take place shortly.
We welcome the move of making necessary amendment to the existing penal code for the State. However keeping the ground situation in mind, it is also of much importance that a new law enforced for strong reasons may be all right but it is the implementation part that ultimately matters. Hate speeches have the potential of causing major disorder in the state and disruption of social fabric which is fragile in the event of calculated endeavours for subverting it. Therefore firstly the punishment for the crime of delivering hate speeches should be very serve and secondly it should be enforced whenever a case of one indulging in this crime is proved. Prevention is better than cure, goes the old axiom.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel