Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Madan Lokur Hits Out At Govt On Hate Speech

Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court, today hit out at the prevailing hate speech in the country and the lack of action taken against it.

In a virtual talk session titled "Hate Speech in India", Justice Lokur spoke on hate speech in general and how courts have reacted or failed to react to complaints.

"Let me begin by trying to understand what is hate speech. Presently we have no legal definition. But I think we need one. Quite some time back, in 1969 the IPC was amended and Section 153A introduced the concept of hate speech. Then you have Section 153 B of the IPC which talks of causes or likely to cause disharmony. The third Section is 505, in the context of public mischief. The way I look at it, hate speech would come within one of these," he said at the beginning of his speech.

He said that India has had a broad interpretation of "what is hate speech or attempt to hate speech."

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v UOI case, Justice Lokur points that the Supreme Court looked at hate speech as something having the effect of delegitimising, marginalising people belonging to a group and beyond causing distress.

Economic Times

He adds, "hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range from discrimination to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide."

Adding the third thing the Supreme Court did was, it asked the Law Commission to look into this entire aspect & give a report.

"They did look into it but the troubling aspect is, nothing has happened," he noted.

He referred to other countries, Canada in this case, to make a point about understanding hate speech. "In Canada, they said you have to look at it from the standpoint of a reasonable person," he said.

"But today, I don't know. Is a minister who gives hate speech a reasonable person? A minister who puts a garland on persons who are convicted of lynching. Is he a reasonable person? If these are reasonable personal, then reasonableness has a completely different meaning from what at least, I understood as a student of law. So, perhaps in Canada, they still understand what a reasonable person is. But we have a bit of a problem," Justice Lokur said.

Prayagraj Dharam Sansad

Talking about the "chilling effect", Justice Lokur said "When you put a journalist in jail for saying something or writing something, you have a chilling effect on other journalists. When you have NGOs being raided, you have a chilling effect on other NGOs."

"When you indulge in hate speech, it may or may not result in violence, that is important and that is what constitutes a hate crime," he said.

Justice Lokur citing examples of the effect of hate speech

Justice Lokur, in his session, cited some examples of hate speech and its effects on people.

"In 2012, there were these images of violence which had happened in Myanmar. They were being distributed as evidence of violence in Assam. This resulted in some citizens of our country belonging to the northeast becoming victims of violence. It is estimated that something like 50,000 people from the northeast went back to their home states. That was the chilling effect."

He also talked about Sulli Deals and Bulli Bai apps where Muslim women were auctioned online. "There's no violence in this, but is it not hate speech? Can you say, "It's okay! Freedom of expression."

Bulli Bai/ Screengrab

He also pointed out the Dharam Sansad incident where open calls were made for Muslim Genocide.

"You have schools, a particular school was targetted in Madhya Pradesh, children were giving their exam and suddenly people came and started throwing stones. You have, in Agra, effigies of Santa Claus being burnt a day before Christmas. We've had, in Delhi, a minister saying "Goli Maaro". What is that, if not incitement to kill?", he questioned.

He hit out at the courts for taking no action against hate speech and ethnic cleansing. " So, you have the police or the prosecution not doing anything about it. The government not doing anything about it- silent. You have some people from the government being proactive, garlanding them," Justice Lokur said.

He said that country has accepted hate speech as a norm and the State is merely a silent spectator now. He said that it is imperative that the Parliament enacts a law on hate speech.

For more on news and current affairs from around the world, please visit Indiatimes News.