New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the way television channels argue, saying a methodology should be prescribed for such discussions to ensure that they do not promote hate speech.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy slammed the Center for not being “proactive” in addressing the rising incidence of hate speech and instead treating it as a “trivial matter”.
Where is our country going? Hate speech spreads poison,” Justice Joseph suggested that the void in the law be filled with guidelines, as was done in Vishakha. The case, which remained in force for more than two decades before the law on sexual harassment at the workplace, was notified.
The top court was shocked when it was told that the central government has not yet taken a stand on the Law Commission. 2017 Report which identifies the criteria for ‘prescribing hate speech’.
The judges also felt that the Center is a “silent witness” to incidents of hate speech and asked to assist the court in resolving the problem.
“Be ready to assist the court. Do not treat it as an adversarial issue,” the court told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Natraj, giving the Center two weeks to file a report based on the responses received from 14 states, to deal with the cases. on the action taken. Hate speech.
The court was hearing a plea by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking a ban on candidates who were accused of making hate speeches, from contesting elections. The petition has also sought that directions be issued to the Center to define hate speech as per the suggestions listed in the Law Commission report.
The bench also indicated that, in the absence of a specific law, it may lay down guidelines – as was done in Vishakha. The decision which created a mechanism to deal with incidents of sexual harassment at workplace – to define the framework of hate speech. It added that the guidelines would set up an institutional mechanism to deal with complaints of hate speech.
‘Freedom of the Press, Audience’
Also, the bench said, it will consider how the TV debate should be conducted so that they do not speak abusive language further.
“If the anchor is going to take a lion’s share of the debate time, if the anchor’s question is so long and the time given to the person answering is short and even in that short period, he goes down all the time, someone Made kind of scoundrel, not fair. You have to be fair to everyone. It should all be done fairly,” Justice Joseph insisted, adding that a system should be put in place so that with “real freedom of the press”- There should also be a “listener” so that the latter does not go astray.
When counsel for the National Broadcasting Association (NBA) informed the bench that it had a system in place to punish violators, the judges remarked: “But the problem still remains. You may have placed 4,000 orders, but what is the impact of such an order?
“Unless the consequences of the violation are harsh on the person who violates, how will the message go? This chicken feed kind of fine is less, not a single tear will come in their pockets,” Justice Roy said.
The court said that political parties will come and go, but institutions like the media are there to stay. “No nation can progress without a completely free press. Therefore, we must have true freedom for the press,” the court remarked.
The bench later highlighted the need for an “effective legal framework” to deal with instances of hate speech, observing that it was “unfortunate” how the nation was feeding such talks.
(Edited by Amritansh Arora)
Read also: Polite, informal warnings can reduce hate speech on Twitter, New York University study finds