The Supreme Court of India, in a significant observation reflecting the limits of judicial intervention in matters of policing and executive responsibility, stated that it is not inclined to monitor every single incident of hate speech that occurs across the country. The remark came during the hearing of petitions seeking stronger and more centralised judicial mechanisms to curb the rising number of hate-driven public statements, social media posts, and communal provocations reported in various States.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it unequivocally clear that the apex court cannot transform itself into a supervisory police authority nor can it substitute the elaborate structure of police forces, district courts, and High Courts already empowered to take action under the law. According to the Bench, police stations are fully capable of registering and investigating cases, and High Courts, being constitutional courts with jurisdiction over their respective States, possess the institutional capacity to monitor any lapses in enforcement.

The court’s remarks hold particular significance at a time when public debate around hate speech has intensified. Various groups and individuals have moved the court demanding stricter monitoring mechanisms, arguing that the regular law-and-order machinery fails to act swiftly or impartially. However, the Supreme Court historically maintains a balanced approach—acknowledging the seriousness of hate speech while warning against over-judicialisation of executive functions.

In its latest observation, the Bench distilled this principle: the court cannot and will not intervene in every incident. The judiciary, the Bench reiterated, must uphold constitutional propriety by not assuming roles delegated to police and administrative authorities. “We have police stations and we have High Courts. They are competent to deal with such issues,” the court observed, stressing that constitutional hierarchy must be respected.

Background to the Petitions

The petitions before the court sought a range of remedies, including national-level monitoring of hate-based incidents, real-time oversight through committees, special investigation teams, and direct reporting to the Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that the rising frequency and intensity of hate speech constituted a threat to social harmony and warranted extraordinary judicial attention.

Some petitioners argued that despite existing laws, enforcement remained sporadic and politically influenced in many States, allowing hate-filled narratives to flourish unchecked. They further claimed that the multiplicity of law enforcement agencies, coupled with uneven policing cultures, contributed to inconsistent application of the law.

However, the Supreme Court emphasised that the remedy for non-implementation of law is not judicial takeover, but improvement in enforcement through administrative accountability and High Court oversight. High Courts, the Bench noted, have immense powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to ensure compliance by police and State authorities.

The Court’s Institutional Reasoning

The Bench’s stance was grounded in a long-standing judicial philosophy: the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has, in several landmark cases, articulated the boundaries between judicial activism and judicial overreach. While it frequently steps in to correct gross violations or systemic failures, the court avoids entering domains explicitly assigned to the executive wing.

In declining to monitor hate speech incidents, the Bench reaffirmed that principle. Judicial supervision of every incident would effectively turn the Supreme Court into a nationwide police command centre, which is neither feasible nor constitutionally appropriate. It would also create a precedent that could encourage litigants to bypass established legal channels and approach the Supreme Court directly for issues resolvable at local or State levels.

This could, the Bench cautioned, overload the court with petitions that must be first addressed by law enforcement agencies or High Courts. Over-centralisation of judicial authority could also weaken the federal structure of India’s legal system by diminishing the significance of regional courts.

Policing and Enforcement: The Court’s Expectation

Despite refusing to take direct supervisory responsibility, the Supreme Court did not downplay the seriousness of hate speech. The Bench recognised that hate-driven speech has the potential to disturb public order, incite violence, and fracture communal harmony, which are issues the State must address decisively.

The court reminded authorities that existing legal provisions—including sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to promoting enmity, outraging religious feelings, and making statements conducive to public mischief—provide adequate tools for action. State police forces were urged to act promptly and impartially whenever incidents arise.

Furthermore, the Bench noted that High Courts are fully empowered to intervene if the police fail to perform their duties. Citizens who feel aggrieved by inaction at the police level can approach the jurisdictional High Court for directives, monitoring, or corrective measures.

Balancing Freedom of Speech and Public Order

The Supreme Court has long maintained a delicate balance between free speech and public order. Hate speech cases frequently fall at the intersection of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to free expression, and Article 19(2), which permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, decency, and morality.

In its past judgments, the court has held that speech intended to vilify, provoke violence, or harm public harmony is not protected under free speech. However, the current Bench emphasised that classification of speech as “hate speech” must be based on objective legal criteria rather than subjective interpretations or political motivations.

This requires careful evaluation by police, prosecutors, and lower courts—another reason why the Supreme Court prefers not to intervene at the first instance. The local context, specific facts, immediate consequences, and intent behind speech are best assessed by agencies and courts closer to the matter.

Judicial Responsibility Versus Administrative Action

An important dimension of the court’s reasoning relates to judicial manageability. Monitoring every incident would require the Supreme Court to track nationwide data, review police action, monitor chargesheets, and examine local developments—a mammoth administrative responsibility inconsistent with the court’s primary function as an appellate constitutional court.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.