The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to explain actions taken after the lodging of FIRs in hate speech cases, as it said abjuring hate speech is a fundamental requisite for the maintenance of communal harmony in the country.
The top court emphasised the need for the Centre to take action against persons making such statements, since merely registering complaints is not going to solve the problem of hate speeches.
A bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that this court had passed an order directing "suo motu" action against culprits on a certain understanding about what was happening in this country and expected the authorities to take prompt action.
For his part, Mehta said 18 FIRs have been lodged in relation to hate speeches.
Also Read | SC to hear plea for clubbing of lawsuits pertaining to Gyanvapi mosque complex row on April 21
Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Nizamuddin Pasha said that 50 rallies have been conducted in Maharashtra in the past four months where hate speeches have been made.
The counsel said he has annexed news reports too.
Vehemently objecting to Pasha's submission, Mehta asked how a newspaper report could be made the basis of an application.
"Are we converting this court into a magisterial court," he asked.
"What if a hate speech is made somewhere, this man from Kerala (Pasha) is fully aware of Maharashtra. There is complete peace in the rest of the country and there is no hate speech elsewhere," Mehta contended, alleging the bona fide of the petitioner should be looked into.
The court told Mehta that on the last occasion, he had conceded that this matter would be at the heart of democracy.
"Abjuring hate speech is a fundamental requisite for the maintenance of communal harmony...We passed an order on a certain understanding of what was happening in this country. Don't think that we don't understand what is happening just because we keep silent. We should not be misunderstood," the bench said.
Mehta submitted that the petitioner should be directed to place before the court hate speeches across religions.
"If we are really serious, he should be asked to collect all hate speeches across religions and place them before the court for similar action. He cannot be selective. This court needs to ascertain the genuineness," Mehta said.
The court then posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday though Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju sought to defer the matter to some other date.