Supreme court gives all states/UTs clear directives to fight

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued an order requiring all 50 states and the union territories to take immediate suo moto action to file a police report (FIR) whenever hate speech is committed, even in the absence of any complaints.

The Preamble's vision of Bharat as a secular nation was upheld by a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, who made it plain that such action must be taken regardless of the speaker's faith.The judges ruled that any inaction in addressing hate speech would be considered contempt of court.

A number of petitions asking for guidance to stop hate speech were being heard by the Supreme Court. The cases scheduled to be heard on May 12 have now been posted.
The court has now expanded its October 21, 2022 order, which was only applicable to the governments of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh, to include all of the States and Union Territories. The bench made it quite plain during the hearing that, in its prior judgment, it did not order that action be taken against any specific community but rather that action be conducted regardless of the belief.

One of the petitioners asserted that hate speech was a widespread issue in India, and Justice Joseph refuted that assertion. As a result, we are unaware of whether it is common throughout all of India or simply exists in particular areas for specific reasons. The public's welfare was our only consideration when we issued the order for suo motu action against hate speech, and we didn't want things to spiral out of control.

A violation "affecting the fabric of the nation" is hate speech, according to the bench. Justice Joseph remarked, "We want to say something," as the attorneys cited examples of hate speech in West Bengal and Bihar. We are both apolitical judges on the bench. Neither party A nor party B are important to us. The Constitution is all we have right now. "Stay away from politics. We won't participate in this if there is an attempt to insert politics. Regardless of religion, we have stated that action should be taken," the bench continued.