4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Apr 30, 2026 02:15 AM IST
The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that issues related to hate speech affect fraternity and constitutional order, even as it held that the criminal law has adequate provisions to deal with such offences and left it to Parliament to decide if any changes are necessary.
The judgment by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta came on a clutch of petitions seeking the court’s intervention in a series of alleged hate speeches.
The petitioners also sought appropriate directions to the Centre to examine the existing legal framework governing ‘hate speech’ and ‘rumour-mongering’, and to take such steps as may be necessary to effectively address and regulate it by law.
The court said that “hate speech is … not merely a deviation from acceptable discourse; it is fundamentally antithetical to the constitutional value of fraternity and strikes at the moral fabric of our Republic. It also runs counter to the deeper civilisational ethos of India. The land historically known as Bharata has, across centuries, been a refuge for diverse communities fleeing persecution, offering not merely shelter but acceptance and assimilation. This tradition of inclusivity is not episodic, but deeply embedded in the cultural consciousness of the nation.”
It said that “for a nation that has historically embraced the idea of the world as one family, the modern construct of ‘citizenship’ cannot be reduced to a basis for exclusion or division. It is, therefore, inconceivable that citizens be classified or discriminated against on grounds such as caste, colour, creed, gender, or any other marker rooted in an ‘us versus them’ mindset. Such an approach would be wholly inconsistent with the constitutional vision of unity, dignity, and equality”.
The bench said “the idea of belonging to one nation cannot be made contingent upon selective inclusion or exclusion; rather, it requires a collective commitment to shared constitutional values. Fraternity, therefore, demands that every citizen recognise and respect the equal dignity of others, irrespective of differences, and consciously eschew conduct that undermines social harmony”.
On the prayer for its intervention, the court said that “the contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived. The existing framework of substantive criminal law, including the provisions of the IPC and allied legislation, adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. The field is therefore not unoccupied.”
Story continues below this ad
The SC made it clear that the “creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lies squarely within the legislative domain” and “the Constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions.”
“While we decline to issue directions sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that the issues relating to hate speeches and rumour mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and constitutional order,” said the court.
“It is open to the Union and the States to consider in their wisdom whether any further legislative measures are warranted in the light of evolving societal changes and challenges, or to bring suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission in its 267 report dated March 23, 2017,” it said.
The bench pointed out that the statutory mechanism under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provides a comprehensive way to put in motion the criminal law against hate speech. It added that the magistrate’s court also has supervisory power.
