❈ ❈ ❈

A New Silence: SC’s Flip Towards Non-Interference in Hate Speech Instances

Sabrang India

On November 25, the Supreme Court docket made it clear that it could not convert itself right into a “nationwide monitoring authority” for each incident of hate speech occurring throughout the nation. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, listening to an software alleging requires the social and financial boycott of a selected neighborhood, underscored that the Court docket’s position couldn’t develop into legislative or policing domains just because a petitioner sought blanket supervision.

In response to The Hindu, the bench remarked “We aren’t legislating within the garb of this petition. Relaxation assured, we’re not inclined to both legislate or monitor each small incident which takes place in X, Y, Z pocket of this nation”. Stressing the constitutional structure already in place, the judges famous, “There are excessive courts, there are police stations, there are legislative measures. They’re already in place.”

The Supreme Court docket’s newest remarks—disclaiming duty for monitoring hate-speech incidents and directing petitioners to Excessive Courts and police stations—signify an more and more pronounced judicial retreat at a time when hate speech has change into pervasive, organised, and infrequently politically sanctioned. Coming from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Court docket’s insistence that it “can’t legislate or monitor each small incident” might seem administratively pragmatic, however constitutionally, it raises severe considerations.

‘Strategy the Excessive Court docket; We can’t monitor the whole nation’

The Bench initially directed the applicant to lift the grievance earlier than the involved Excessive Court docket. “How can this courtroom proceed to observe all such cases all around the nation?” it requested, in keeping with The Print. “You strategy the authorities. Allow them to take motion, in any other case go to the excessive courtroom.”

Counsel for the applicant, Advocate Nizam Pasha, submitted that he had filed an software in an already pending writ petition on hate speech, bringing forth “further cases” of boycott calls. When the Bench noticed that the calls seemed to be made by personal people, counsel responded that “some public representatives are additionally issuing related calls.”

Solicitor Normal Tushar Mehta interjected sharply: “Public curiosity can’t be selective to 1 explicit faith… There are extreme hate speeches happening amongst all religions. I’ll provide these particulars to my buddy (applicant). Let him add that and espouse that public trigger on a pan-religion foundation.”

The applicant’s counsel insisted that he approached the Court docket solely as a result of the authorities “are usually not taking any motion,” and invoked earlier instructions of the Court docket the place State inaction on hate speech was to set off suo motu registration of FIRs and potential contempt for non-compliance.

Mehta maintained that whereas “nobody may be indulging in hate speech,” a public-spirited litigant “can’t be selective.” The Bench reiterated that statutory mechanisms existed: “Whichever state you may have an issue with, you strategy the jurisdictional excessive courtroom for acceptable aid.”

Advocate Nizam Pasha, showing for journalist Qurban Ali and others, reminded the Court docket of its October 2022 order. In October 2022, disturbed by the “unabated ferocity” of hate crimes and warning {that a} “local weather of hate prevails within the nation,” the Court docket had directed police authorities to suo motu register instances towards hate-speech offenders. Nonetheless, these remarks counsel a recalibration: the Supreme Court docket asserting that enforcement have to be dealt with on the correct institutional ranges, not constantly escalated to the apex courtroom.

Along with this, Pasha additionally referred to an affidavit flagging a submit shared by an Assam minister following the BJP’s victory in Bihar, claiming it referenced the 1989 Bhagalpur bloodbath by alluding to “Bihar approving gobi farming”—an alleged nod to victims whose our bodies have been buried in cauliflower fields.

The Bench listed the matter for additional listening to on December 9, 2025.

A Court docket that after known as arresting hate crimes a “sacrosanct obligation” now says: go elsewhere

These oral observations signify a notable second almost seven years after the Court docket’s landmark Tehseen Poonawala (2018) judgment, the place it held that stopping hate crimes is the State’s “sacrosanct obligation.” The Court docket had then laid down in depth pointers to forestall mob violence and lynching.

In Tehseen Poonawala (2018), the Supreme Court docket emphatically held that stopping hate crimes is the State’s “sacrosanct obligation” and positioned appreciable constitutional duty on the judiciary to make sure compliance.

When the Bench says: “We aren’t inclined to both legislate or monitor each small incident”, the query naturally arises: What counts as “small” in hate speech? Hate speech isn’t an remoted “X, Y, Z pocket” downside; it’s a structural, nationwide, and more and more legitimised phenomenon that fuels violence, radicalises communities, and undermines constitutional fraternity. Treating every incident as merely native—finest dealt with on the nearest police station—ignores the systemic, not episodic, nature of the issue.

Moreover, the petitioner’s counsel explicitly reminded the Court docket of its personal earlier instructions: If States fail to behave on hate speech, police should register FIRs suo motu; if police fail, contempt proceedings observe. By refusing to even monitor compliance with its personal framework, the Court docket creates a paradox:

• Obligation to behave stays,
• however enforcement evaporates.

This turns constitutionally mandated preventive oversight into judicial suggestion, not judicial command.

With reference to Solicitor Normal’s assertion that public curiosity can’t be selective and that every one religions face hate speech is a well-known rhetorical manoeuvre that:

1. Equates majority-to-minority hate speech with minority-to-majority rhetoric, flattening unequal energy buildings;
2. Deflects from documented, systemic hate speech concentrating on Muslims, together with political campaigns;
3. Reframes structural discrimination as generic social disharmony.

The Court docket’s willingness to echo the “pan-religion foundation” line dilutes the urgency of addressing majoritarian hate speech, a constitutional and empirical actuality extensively acknowledged by earlier benches.

Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket: Reinforcing judicial distance from enforcement

The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket’s resolution on November 21 in a separate hate-speech matter additional illustrates the judiciary’s rising reluctance to scrutinise investigative lapses in such instances. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a plea looking for coercive motion towards Johar Chhattisgarh Occasion chief Amit Baghel, accused of repeated inflammatory statements towards Agrawal, Sindhi, and Jain communities

The Division Bench held firmly that the petitioner had did not substantiate allegations of State inaction, emphasising that mere accusations of “State apathy” couldn’t justify extraordinary judicial intervention.

The Court docket noticed:

• “The Petitioner has not introduced forth any cogent materials to display that the investigating company has both shut the investigation or refused to behave on the FIRs.”
• “Mere dissatisfaction with the tempo or nature of investigation can’t, in regulation, furnish a floor for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court docket below Part 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Article 226 of the Structure.”

The Bench cautioned that the reliefs sought—course for arrest, supervision by a specific-rank officer, periodic standing reviews, consolidated chargesheet—would quantity to “judicial micromanagement” of investigation and intrude into the statutory area of the police.

The Court docket reiterated established regulation: a writ of mandamus can’t compel arrest, dictate the course of investigation, or require a consolidated chargesheet when the statute doesn’t mandate one. “The Petitioner has not proven any distinctive circumstance to point non-compliance with these pointers, neither is there any imminent risk to public order warranting extraordinary measures,” the Court docket added in its order.

Discovering no distinctive urgency or imminent risk to public order, the petition was dismissed.

The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket’s dismissal of the plea towards Amit Baghel matches seamlessly into this bigger sample of institutional distancing. By insisting that:

• dissatisfaction with investigation tempo isn’t sufficient,
• courts can’t “micromanage,”
• no “distinctive circumstances” exist,

the Excessive Court docket reinforces a development the place judicial assessment of State inaction on hate speech is more and more restricted, whilst hate speech intensifies.

The constitutional misdiagnosis on the coronary heart of India’s hate-speech disaster

The core problem lies within the Court docket’s very conceptualisation of hate speech: by repeatedly characterising it as a routine “law-and-order” matter to be dealt with by native police or challenged earlier than jurisdictional Excessive Courts, the Supreme Court docket collapses a profound constitutional disaster into an administrative downside. This framing disregards the Court docket’s personal jurisprudence recognising hate speech as a risk to equality, an assault on dignity, a catalyst for mob violence, a barrier to democratic participation, and a weapon disproportionately used towards minorities and dissenters—phenomena that can’t be meaningfully addressed via unusual policing. Removed from being “pocket-level incidents,” modern hate speech is intimately linked to electoral mobilisation, vigilante networks, and entrenched patterns of institutional discrimination, inserting it effectively past the capability or neutrality of native law-and-order mechanisms. The Court docket’s withdrawal from scrutiny due to this fact carries structural penalties: it alerts to State authorities that inaction won’t appeal to judicial oversight; it chills public-spirited litigation by suggesting that constitutionally important harms are too “small” or “native” for the Supreme Court docket’s consideration; and it sits uneasily with the Court docket’s personal earlier precedents mandating suo motu FIRs and warning States of contempt, thereby diminishing each doctrinal coherence and the credibility of constitutional adjudication. In impact, lowering hate speech to a routine policing matter doesn’t merely minimise its gravity—it dangers normalising it.

Conclusion: A constitutional second demanding vigilance, not withdrawal

India resides via a documented and politically charged escalation in hate speech, and at such a second the Supreme Court docket’s assertion that it can’t monitor “each small incident” dangers being interpreted not as judicial restraint however as a sign that State authorities might do much less, no more. No constitutional courtroom is predicted to police each episode—however it’s anticipated to make sure that State equipment features, that elementary rights are meaningfully protected, and that its personal earlier mandates are usually not rendered hole via non-enforcement. By showing to withdraw simply when constitutional vigilance is most important, the Court docket creates a troubling hole between constitutional guarantees and institutional apply. At a time when hate speech carries structural, electoral, and communal penalties, this isn’t a second for judicial distance however for principled constitutional engagement; stepping again now dangers weakening exactly the safeguards the Structure depends on courts to uphold.

[Courtesy: Sabrang India, an online portal dedicated to fighting the cancer of divisive politics. It is edited by Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Former Judges and Advocates Urge CJI to Uphold Rohingya Rights

Countercurrents Collective

[An open letter, addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) written by former judges, senior advocates, and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) conveys their deep concern over remarks made by a Supreme Court bench on December 2, during a hearing on the alleged custodial disappearance of Rohingya refugees in India. The letter says that the statements made by the bench—such as equating Rohingya refugees with illegal intruders, comparing them to people who dig tunnels to enter India, questioning their entitlement to basic needs like food, shelter, and education, and referencing domestic poverty as a justification for denying fundamental rights—reflect a troubling departure from constitutional values. They emphasize that such remarks are dehumanising and undermine the equal human dignity of Rohingyas, who are protected by Indian constitutional law and international law.

The letter contextualises the plight of the Rohingya people, describing them as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world, stateless and subjected to decades of violence in Myanmar, including what international bodies have termed ethnic cleansing and genocide. Like other persecuted communities historically welcomed by India, Rohingya refugees come seeking safety and basic protection.

The authors highlight that the CJI, as head of the judiciary, holds moral and institutional authority extending beyond the courtroom. Judicial remarks influence not only the subordinate judiciary but also state authorities and public perception. When vulnerable groups are characterised as “intruders,” the letter argues, it erodes the judiciary’s role as the protector of the marginalized and undermines public trust in the courts.

The signatories reaffirm that Article 21 of the Constitution—protecting life and personal liberty—applies to all persons residing in India, not just citizens. They cite the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence, including NHRC v State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), where the Court held that the State is obligated to protect the life and liberty of every human being. They also note that customary international law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement (prohibiting the return of refugees to a place of persecution), is recognized as part of Article 21 rights.

The letter outlines India’s longstanding humanitarian tradition of sheltering refugees—from Tibetans and Sri Lankan Tamils to millions fleeing East Pakistan before the creation of Bangladesh. India has standard operating procedures for refugee status determination, demonstrating alignment between international norms and domestic practice. Even recent legislation such as the Citizenship Amendment Act acknowledges persecution as a legitimate basis for protection, though controversially limited to non-Muslim groups.

The authors argue that dismissive or hostile judicial rhetoric threatens constitutional morality, compassion, and the protection of human dignity. Such remarks may create reasonable apprehension of bias and could impact ongoing and future cases concerning Rohingya rights. The letter urges the CJI to publicly reaffirm the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional values, human dignity, and justice for all persons regardless of origin. The signatories conclude that the true majesty of the Supreme Court lies not merely in its verdicts but in the humanity and moral clarity with which justice is administered.]

fifth December 2025

Open Letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

Expensive Hon’ble Chief Justice,

We, the undersigned former Judges, present advocates and the Marketing campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), are writing with due respect to the Hon’ble Court docket, to convey our deep concern at sure unconscionable remarks made about Rohingya refugees on the 2nd of December 2025, by the bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court docket that was listening to a plea alleging custodial disappearance of Rohingya refugees in India. The petition has been filed by Dr. Rita Manchanda who’s a famend author, scholar and human rights activist specialising in battle decision and peacebuilding in South Asia with explicit consideration to susceptible and marginalised teams, together with forcibly displaced individuals. For causes given beneath, the remarks from the bench are opposite to core constitutional values. They’ve had the impact of dehumanizing Rohingya refugees whose equal humanity and equal human rights are protected by the Structure, our legal guidelines and by worldwide regulation.

As residents dedicated to fairness, human dignity and the ethical foundations of justice, we’re deeply troubled by the remarks made within the current listening to, notably the reported statements questioning the authorized standing of the Rohingya as refugees, equating them with intruders illegally getting into India, the references to individuals who dig tunnels to enter illegally, the questioning whether or not such entrants are entitled to meals, shelter and schooling, the invocation of home poverty as a motive to disclaim primary constitutionally assured entitlements to refugees and the suggestion that they be spared third diploma measures, of their remedy in India!

We wish to carry to your discover that the United Nations has described the Rohingya as “essentially the most persecuted minority on the planet”. They’re an ethnic minority in Buddhist majority Myanmar who’ve endured many years of violence and discrimination. Denied citizenship, the Rohingya are stateless. They’ve fled to neighbouring international locations in waves over the previous a few years, escaping what has been described by the Worldwide Court docket of Justice as ethnic cleaning and genocide by the hands of the armed forces. They’re fleeing to India, like centuries of refugees earlier than them, looking for primary security.

As the top of the judiciary, the Chief Justice is not only a authorized functionary — however can also be the custodian and remaining arbiter of the rights of the poor, the dispossessed, and the marginalised. Your phrases carry weight not merely within the courtroom however within the conscience of the nation and have a cascading impact on the Excessive Courts, the decrease judiciary and different authorities authorities. A comment that equates susceptible individuals (who within the case of the Rohingya embody hundreds of ladies and kids) looking for shelter with “intruders” who “dig tunnels”, additional dehumanises these fleeing genocidal persecution and weakens the ethical authority of the judiciary. Additional, invoking the plight of the poor in India to justify denying protections to refugees units a harmful precedent, being opposite to the rules of constitutional justice. The Rohingya, as certainly any particular person residing in India, is entitled to the protections of Article 21 and never simply protections from “third diploma measures”. This elementary proper is obtainable to a person who’s a citizen or some other particular person residing in India. In NHRC v State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996 SCC (1) 742, this Hon’ble Court docket has held that, “the State is certain to guard the life and liberty of each human being, be he a citizen or in any other case”.

On this context, it’s pertinent to level out briefly:

1. The Rohingya have a qualitatively completely different standing of being refugees, as in comparison with unlawful immigrants. Refugee standing willpower is declaratory in nature: an individual doesn’t change into a refugee due to recognition, however is recognised as a result of she or he is a refugee. It follows from this and from the duty of non refoulment (which is a non derogable norm of customary worldwide regulation) {that a} refugee has a proper to be formally and individually decided as a refugee with the intention to formalise her standing. Any refoulment, imprisonment or detention with out having individually and formally decided their declare as a refugee, is due to this fact unlawful. It’s gutting the best to non-refoulment which the Courts have held to be part of Article 21.
2. India has a Customary Working Process for Overseas Nationals Claiming to be Refugees (2011 and up to date in 2019). It defines refugee as an individual who has “… grounds of a effectively based worry of persecution on account of race, faith, intercourse, nationality, ethnic id, membership of a selected social group or political opinion…”. This reveals that there is no such thing as a battle between customary worldwide regulation and established municipal apply.
3. India has all the time recognised refugees as having a qualitatively completely different standing from migrants. India has a powerful observe document of internet hosting refugees of various profiles and has the expertise in extending humanitarian safety whereas balancing nationwide safety pursuits and the considerations of its residents. The federal government has issued particular documentation to Tibetans and Sri Lankans, recognizing their standing as refugees, and permitting them to entry primary socio-economic rights. Within the interval simply previous to the formation of Bangladesh in 1970-71, India allowed tens of millions of refugees fleeing persecution from the authorities in erstwhile East Pakistan and the then Authorities folks of India willingly contributed to make sure not solely their security but additionally for his or her well being and different wants, until such time as they have been resident inside our borders. The Citizenship Modification Act, the truth is grants exemption from the provisions of the Foreigners Act to spiritual minorities (apart from Muslims), fleeing persecution, from Bangladesh, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Quite a few writ petitions questioning the discriminatory nature of the laws are pending earlier than the Court docket.

Judicial authority is constructed on the rules of constitutional morality, compassion and safety of human dignity. When those that flee violence and persecution are dismissed with rhetoric that’s hostile to their very dignity, it threatens the foundational values of our Structure and undermines public religion within the courts as a refuge for the susceptible. Such remarks present an affordable foundation for apprehension of prejudice on the a part of the bench towards the rights of the Rohingya refugees and for concern that they’ll adversely have an effect on public belief and confidence within the judiciary on the subject of defending the rights of essentially the most susceptible amongst us. We due to this fact name upon you to reaffirm, in public statements, remarks in courtroom and judicial verdicts, a dedication to constitutional morality primarily based on human dignity and justice for all, no matter origin. The majesty of the Supreme Court docket and your workplace is measured not merely by the variety of verdicts or administrative measures however extra by the humanity with which these verdicts are delivered and thought of.

Regards,

• Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice, Delhi Excessive Court docket
• Justice Okay. Chandru, Former Decide, Madras Excessive Court docket
• Justice Anjana Prakash, Former decide, Patna Excessive Court docket
• Prof. Mohan Gopal, Former Director, Nationwide Judicial Academy
• Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court docket
• Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court docket
• Mr. Colin Gonzalves, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court docket
• Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate, Supreme Court docket
• Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Bombay Excessive Court docket
• Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court docket
• Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Advocate, Excessive Court docket & Supreme Court docket
• Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Advocate, Excessive Court docket & Supreme Court docket
• Working Group, CJAR: Prashant Bhushan (Advocate, Supreme Court docket), Nikhil Dey (RTI Activist & Co-Founder Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan), and plenty of others

[Courtesy: Countercurrents.org, an India-based news, views and analysis website, that describes itself as non-partisan and taking “the Side of the People!” It is edited by Binu Mathew.]