Legislation on Hate Speech Lies in Domain of Legislature, Not Courts: SC

The Supreme Court of India has held that framing laws on hate speech falls squarely within the legislature’s domain, refusing to issue fresh directions and asserting that the existing legal framework is adequate to deal with such offences.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed a batch of petitions seeking additional guidelines, observing that the claim of a legal vacuum is “misconceived” and that existing criminal law adequately deals with hate speech.

Making its position clear, the court said, “creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lies squarely within the legislative domain,” underlining that courts cannot step into the law-making role. It added that the doctrine of separation of powers prevents the judiciary from directing Parliament to enact or amend laws.

Refusing to act as a continuing supervisory authority, the bench signalled a shift in approach, noting that the judiciary cannot function as a “permanent monitoring body” for hate speech cases and that such responsibilities lie with executive agencies.

The court emphasised that the issue is not the absence of law but gaps in implementation and enforcement , reiterating that police must act promptly and register cases in cognisable offences. It also pointed out that procedural frameworks like the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provide a comprehensive mechanism , including supervisory powers of magistrates, to address such offences.

While declining to issue new guidelines, the bench acknowledged that hate speech has a direct bearing on fraternity and constitutional order , leaving it open to Parliament and state legislatures to consider future reforms if required.

The verdict effectively closes a long phase of judicial intervention in hate speech matters since 2020–23, during which the court had issued directions for suo motu FIR registration and expanded their applicability across states and Union Territories.

The court also dismissed related contempt petitions, noting that aggrieved parties remain free to pursue remedies under existing law or approach competent authorities.