The Supreme Court has taken appropriate intervention to stop the hate speech. During this he has made commendable comments. But the circumstances are such that no concrete possibility has emerged from this intervention to make a real difference.
The observations made by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of hate speech would be agreed upon by every prudent person. In this regret of the Supreme Court, the sentiments of many prudent people were expressed that in the 21st century our society has fallen to the level of speaking tongues. The justices referred to Article 51 of the Constitution, which aimed to make India a country of scientific temper. Today, when this thinking is being attacked all round, the Supreme Court is bound to be concerned about it. So the court has now ordered the police to register a case on their own initiative as soon as the hate speech incident occurs – that is, it should not sit waiting for someone to file a case, then it will start the investigation. In the good faith of the Supreme Court, this order appears to be a reasonable intervention by it. But the big question is, will this goodwill of the court be fulfilled? The reason behind this question arising in the mind is that the police is not an independent and constitutionally functioning agency. Rather, it is subordinate to the state government and is often seen acting in accordance with the political thinking or interest of the government.
If only the ruling leaders consider hate speech as their political capital, then it may be nave to expect that the police will go against their wishes and take action. Then there is no reason to believe that policemen are not motivated by social prejudices. Policemen seem to be affected by the prejudices which have been spread as a political project today. In such a situation, the big question arises whether they will understand or define hate speech according to the spirit of the law and constitution, or will they work under the influence of one-sided thinking which is dominant today? Unless there is clarity on these questions, it is not possible to have real hope. That’s why the court’s observations sounded good, the order also seemed justified, but no concrete possibility has emerged from it to make a real difference.
