Hate speech: SC asks Centre for report on appointment of nodal officers in states

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre to inform in three weeks about states which are yet to appoint nodal officers in each district as per a 2018 directive by the top court to curb crimes of mob lynching and hate crimes.

The direction of the court came during the hearing on a bunch of petitions seeking measures to curb hate speech in the backdrop of the recent protests in Haryana and other parts of the country calling for a social boycott of Muslims.

While the court had early this month directed states in Delhi and national capital region to deploy police personnel in plainclothes at such events, installation of CCTVs and videography of speeches made at the venue as measures to curb hate speeches and resultant violence, many similar instances surfaced from other parts of the country, which led the court to consider strengthening the mechanism across the country to tackle hate speech.

As a first measure, the court decided to find out if its earlier direction of 2018 passed in a petition filed by Tehseen Poonawala was followed by all states and Union territories. This judgment was passed in the context of increasing instances of mob lynching and hate crimes by cow vigilante groups. The court ordered every district in the country to have a nodal officer not below the rank of superintendent of police (SP) to take preventive steps against mob lynching and crimes by cow vigilante groups.

The bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said, “The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will get information with regard to appointment of nodal officers and a status report will be filed in three weeks.” The court wished to strengthen the mechanism already established under the 2018 judgment, by requiring the nodal officers to maintain a case diary of hate speeches as well.

Through this order, the court sought to take stock of states/districts not having a nodal officer and to know how effective they are. The bench asked the Centre to also propose guidelines on how the nodal officers could be asked to keep record of hate speeches in each district and could be aided in this measure by installing CCTVs and sensitising police about reporting hate speeches to the nodal officer. The court said that this may also include circulation of hate speech videos which fans communal tension leading to violence.

The court further proposed that in districts where the number of hate speeches/crimes exceeds the count of five or six, a committee can be constituted by the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) of that district for better handling or monitoring of the situation.

“We want effective practical steps to be taken to ensure letter of law is followed,” the bench said asking additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for the Centre to frame draft guidelines on the above lines and submit to court.

ASG sought more time to compile data from states on nodal officers. The bench asked him to inform about the states which fail to give information and even asked counsels appearing for all states to take instructions in this regard by the next date of hearing.

Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) submitted a few suggestions prepared by him on steps to curb hate speech. The court agreed to consider it on the next date.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing another petitioner Shaheen Abdullah, told the court that directions have been issued from time to time by the top court. He referred to the October 21 order passed last year by the top court directing authorities to register suo moto complaint on hate speech and proposing action taken against delinquent police officers who fail to abide by this direction. Pasha said, “There are guidelines in place but what is lacking is political will to implement it.”

Another lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that the lack of any clear definition of what constitutes hate speech is also an impediment in registering these crimes. The bench said, “The law is clear. But it is the understanding of law that must be clear in a particular situation.”