By Mohd Sikandar
While analysing the
increasing instances of hate speeches in the aftermath of the 2019 Lok Sabha
elections, the higher judiciary should be concerned about the demonisation of
Muslims, and the nexus between the state authorities and the communal elements,
writes Mohd Sikandar.
30 Jan 2022
Image credit: The
Leaflet
In the aftermath of the 2019 General Elections, the country has
been hit by a tirade of hate speeches. From the Tablighi Jamaat incident to the
communalization of civil services to Sulli deals and Bulli bai apps, there
hasn’t been a month since 2020 when communal forces haven’t raked a new issue.
A perusal of the trend reveals that the majority of these hate speeches are
directed towards the Muslim community. Behind the hate message is the idea of
the demonisation of Muslims in India.
The Right-Wing brigade has pictured Indian Muslims as the mother
of all evil and enemy number one. This phenomenon is evident when during the
first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the Tablighi Jamaat were blamed
for the spread of the pandemic in India. Worse, the media played a disturbing
role in adding fuel to the fire by labeling the incident as Corona Jihad and
Corona Bomb. In another instance, a news TV channel (Sudarshan News TV) ran a
program titled UPSC Jihad, alleging the conspiracy of Muslims to sabotage civil
services.
JUDICIAL
RESPONSE
Of late, the situation has frighteningly escalated with open
derogatory remarks and calls for genocide. Recently, a fringe group of
right-wing organized conclaves under the name “Dharam Sansad” in Delhi and
Haridwar where open calls for violence against Muslims similar to what was
perpetrated on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar were made. Self-styled gurus urged
people to boycott Muslims and to teach them a lesson. In another incident,
online hatred became more serious with the launch of apps like Sulli deals and
Bulli bai where prominent Muslim women were targeted with attacks on their
dignity. What is more unfortunate is that barring a few arrests, the response
of the administration has been lethargic. This is more on account of the state
patronage enjoyed by these anti-social and communal elements. In most of these
cases, the state authorities have been found to be either complicit or in
connivance with the communal elements, rendering the common legal complaint and
investigation process useless.
Under such situations, the duty to curb hate speech and ensure
justice largely falls on the shoulders of the higher judiciary. However, the
reaction of the courts to meet this challenge has been mixed. For instance,
following the social media campaign to demonize Tablighi Jamaat members in
particular and Muslims in general, petitions were filed before the Supreme
Court seeking its intervention in the matter. However, the court brushed aside
the matter pointing to its inadequacy in
stopping communal hashtags. But the question that begs the answer is: can not
the court direct social media companies to closely monitor and filter hate
content?
Similarly, in the Sudarshan News TV case, the court intervened to
stop the airing of a grossly communal program only after some of its episodes
had been telecasted. In the 2020 Delhi riots hate speech case, following the midnight
transfer of Justice Murlidhar, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High
Court gave the Union government “four
weeks” to respond, when the court at least could have directed the
filing of FIRs against the accused. Although recently, the Supreme Court has asked the
High Court to decide the matter within three months, while most of the cases
have been dragging on in courts for months now.
In a more recent case, on August 15 last year, a Hindutva group
raised provocative slogans against the minority community. This was followed by
the filing of a petition for
enforcing the police’s “duty of care” to prevent hate crimes. However, the
court simply tagged the
petition with similar other petitions. Emboldened by the act, calls for
genocide were made at a religious conclave at Haridwar. It was only after the
Supreme Court intervened in
the matter that arrests were made. Likewise, arrests were made in the Bulli bai
app case after petitions were filed before the court.
On the whole, however, it appears that the court has backtracked
from its duty to protect individual rights rather than function proactively.
One cannot deny that a court never functions in isolation. It influences and is
influenced by the climate of its era. But it is only in tough times that our
courts are expected to be brave and pass bold judgments/orders.
In Amish Devgan,
the court rightly observed, “In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech
cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates
the right to equality”. Hate speech is antithesis to the dignity of an
individual. It severely affects the unity, fraternity and integrity of a nation
and violates many of the settled rights in our constitution particularly
Articles 14, 19 and 21. Hate speech is a precursor to violence and often
precedes disorder and riots. If not curbed, it can spread like wildfire and can
have disastrous effects on our society.
(Mohd
Sikandar is LLM (2020-21), NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
No comments:
Post a Comment