On November 25, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not convert itself into a “national monitoring authority” for every incident of hate speech occurring across the country. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing an application alleging calls for the social and economic boycott of a particular community, underscored that the Court’s role could not expand into legislative or policing domains simply because a petitioner sought blanket supervision.
According to the Hindu, the bench remarked “We are not legislating in the garb of this petition. Rest assured, we are not inclined to either legislate or monitor every small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this country”. Stressing the constitutional architecture already in place, the judges noted, “There are high courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They are already in place.”
The Supreme Court’s latest remarks—disclaiming responsibility for monitoring hate-speech incidents and directing petitioners to High Courts and police stations—represent an increasingly pronounced judicial retreat at a time when hate speech has become pervasive, organised, and often politically sanctioned. Coming from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Court’s insistence that it “cannot legislate or monitor every small incident” may appear administratively pragmatic, but constitutionally, it raises serious concerns.
‘Approach the High Court; We cannot monitor the entire country’
The Bench initially directed the applicant to raise the grievance before the concerned High Court. “How can this court continue to monitor all such instances all over the country?” it asked, according to The Print. “You approach the authorities. Let them take action, otherwise go to the high court.”
This story was originally published in newsclick.in. Read the full story here.