सुप्रीम कोर्ट में हेट स्पीच से जुड़ी याचिकाएं खारिज: बेंच बोली- हम संसद को कानून बनाने के लिए मजबूर नहीं कर सकते

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the petitions related to hate speech, saying that the court cannot force the Parliament to make a law. The court said that it is the right of the legislature to make a law on this issue. The court can only point out the need.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that making policy and preparing law comes under the purview of the legislature. The court cannot interfere in this.

The court gave this decision on petitions in which a demand was made to direct the Central Government to review the laws related to hate speech and spreading rumors and make a new law.

Court said – there is no void in the law regarding hate speech

The bench said that the existing legal framework is capable of dealing with cases like hate speech. The problem is not the lack of law, but the delay or unevenness in its implementation. According to the court, in many cases the action is not taken on time or is not uniform.

The court said that it is not correct to say that there is any legal void in this area. Laws are in place and contain provisions that can deal with behavior that disturbs public order or creates tension between communities. The problem is not in the lack of law, but in the way it is implemented. In many cases, proceedings are delayed or legal procedures are not applied consistently.

5 main things about SC…

• The Supreme Court said that its job is not to create new crimes or create any new framework, but to ensure proper implementation of the existing laws.
• Intervention can only be done when there is a clear failure in law enforcement. Where a complete legal framework is in place, the court must exercise restraint and follow the principle of separation of powers.
• Freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is an important foundation of democracy, but it is not unlimited. Appropriate restrictions can be imposed on it for the sake of public order, dignity and social harmony.
• Speech that spreads hatred in society or increases tension between communities does not strengthen democracy but harms the values ​​of fraternity, dignity and equality. Hate speech is a perverted form of freedom of expression.
• The Central and State Governments can decide at their discretion whether changing circumstances require new laws or amendments, which may also include suggestions from the Law Commission’s 267th Report of 2017.

———-

Read this news also…

Lived together for 15 years, have a child too, how sexual harassment: Supreme Court said on live-in relationship – there is risk in it, one can separate at any time

The Supreme Court, while hearing the woman’s petition, asked that when the relationship was consensual then where does the question of crime arise. The woman was in a live-in relationship with the accused for 15 years and she also has a child from him. Read the full news…

Make Dainik Bhaskar your favorite source on Google ➔