Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Against Hateful Statements After Tablighi Jamaat Incident, Says the Court Cannot Define “Hate Speech”

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

Brief Facts

On May 28, Campaign Against Hate Speech, an organisation along with others, filed a PIL in the Karnataka High Court. Media houses and political leaders had been promoting hostility through hate speech. Several of the Tablighi Jamaat members, as we know, tested positive for Coronavirus. ‘Hateful statements’ were made against them. Moreover, the Muslim community along with other minorities too got targeted. Hence, the plea called for swift action against the same.

Submissions by the Petitioners

The petitioners sought immediate action so that the ‘Rule of Law’ could be upheld in the State. Targeting people from minority religion had resulted in instances of social and economic boycott. Article 19(1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Yet, the State also has the authority to restrict that freedom. This is being done in the name of upholding State security and public order.

The petitioners also described the consequences of making hate speech. Hate speech not only dehumanizes the targeted group but also leads to its ouster. Further, they submitted that hate speech needs curbing. In any case, the constitutional values of equality, fraternity and non-discrimination needed safeguarding.

The Court also placed reliance on two cases including State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Togadia, a 2004 SC judgement. In the case, the SC had observed that ‘caustic and inflammatory speech can create disharmony’. This can ‘disturb equilibrium’ and ‘sacrifice public peace and tranquillity’. It hence necessitates ‘preventive action’.

The petitioners drew the Court’s attention to the provisions under the IPC, 1860. Section 153 A, Section 153 B, Section 295 A, Section 298 and Section 505(2) provides for punishing certain kinds of speech. The petitioners also took a dig at “inciteful speech and reportage” on COVID-19 in India by the media. Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued various advisories. These were directions against defamatory speech so as not to incite violence. However, various media organisations had not followed the same.

Political leaders and media alike had sustained continuous campaigns. They linked the spread of the disease to the minority community. Fear and hate against the minorities followed dividing communities.

Prayer

The petitioners prayed to call for records of the action taken by the Respondents in this regard. In total, there were seven respondents:

  1. The State of Karnataka,
  2. Ministry of Home of the Karnataka Government,
  3. Head of the State’s Police Force,
  4. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
  5. The Press Information Bureau,
  6. The Chairperson of the Karnataka State Level Monitoring for Private Television Channels,
  7. The Commissioner of Police.

They prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to take action against media houses and political leaders. Moreover, they asked to takedown inflammatory videos and reports targeting specific communities. They also asked for Call for records w.r.t the formation and working of the state and District Level Monitoring Committee for private channels.

Central and the State Governments’ Arguments

  1. The Centre had already issued several guidelines to private satellite TV channels. The aim was to promote “communal harmony” in both the states and the union territories of India.
  2. The petition was rather a “publicity interest litigation” and not a PIL.
  3. The complainants could seek an appropriate remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The High Court’s Order

The Division Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and MG Uma dismissed the writ petition. The Court concurred with the State Government. Some of the prayers were unclear and could not be sought by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Consitution. The Court said that it could not direct either the Parliament or the State Legislature on the issue. There was an absence of a definition of ‘hate speech’. This was because the Parliament had not yet legislated on the concept. The Court could not issue directions “on the basis of the impact of hate speech” on certain sections of society. The petitioners should have filed complaints under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

There were also various acts to complain against what was being considered a ‘hate speech‘. The petition under Article 226 was not maintainable. Thus, the Court dismissed it.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -