The Supreme Court on April 29 delivered a detailed judgment on a batch of long-pending petitions relating to hate speech through the media, election campaigns and social media narratives. [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors].A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta clarified the scope of judicial powers in regulating hate speech, holding that existing criminal law provisions are sufficient to address such offences and that courts cannot create new offences or compel legislation.In doing so, the Court closed several high-profile hate speech cases that had captured national attention for years. The cases were dismissed either on facts, procedural grounds or because the issues had become infructuous (irrelevant) over time. Below is a list of the most controversial cases that formed part of the batch of petitions disposed of by the top court. .1. “Goli Maaro” speeches by BJP MP Anurag Thakur and Delhi Deputy CM Parvesh Verma.Nature of allegationsThe matter related to speeches delivered during election campaigns in January 2020.The speeches allegedly included provocative slogans and statements said to encourage hostility and violence among communities. The complaint was pursued by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat..Procedural backgroundPolice did not register a first information report (FIR).The complainant approached a magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now 175(3) off Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).Both the magistrate and the Delhi High Court declined relief, holding that prior government sanction was necessary. It was then brought to the top court..Why the Court dismissed the caseThe Supreme Court clarified that prior sanction is not required for directing investigation under Section 156(3). However, on examining the facts, the Court agreed with the High Court that:The material did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence.The speeches were not found to target a specific community in a manner attracting criminal liability.There was no sufficient basis to direct investigation..2. 'Corona Jihad' case.Nature of allegationsThe petition challenged the circulation of social media hashtags such as #Islamiccoronavirusjihad and similar content.The petitioner alleged that such trends were designed to insult religious sentiments of the Muslim community during the COVID-19 pandemic..Procedural backgroundThe matter originated before the Telangana High Court.The High Court had closed the case, stating that it could not grant a pan-India relief against social media platforms and that the issue had largely "worked itself out"..Why the Court dismissed the caseThe Supreme Court noted that:The grievance had substantially lost relevance over time.The issue of social media trends had already evolved and stabilised.Continued adjudication was unnecessary given the passage of time..3. 'UPSC Jihad' case.Nature of allegationsThe petition challenged the broadcast of the programme Bindas Bol, on Sudarshan TV, which alleged a conspiracy relating to entry of Muslims into civil services.The petitioner sought to restrain Sudarshan News from airing content offensive to the Muslim community.Procedural backgroundThe matter was filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32..Why the Court dismissed the caseThe Court held that:Criminal law provisions addressing communal speech already exist.Courts cannot create parallel regulatory frameworks where statutory remedies are available.The relief sought fell within the domain of enforcement under existing law rather than judicial innovation..4. Media coverage relating to the Tablighi Jamaat incident.Nature of allegationsMultiple petitions alleged that sections of the media disseminated misleading and communal narratives following the Nizamuddin Markaz incident during the COVID-19 pandemic.Petitioners sought directions to restrain allegedly biased reporting..Procedural backgroundSeveral writ petitions were filed directly in the Supreme Court against government authorities and media entities..Why the Court dismissed the caseThe Court noted that:Many prayers related specifically to pandemic-era circumstances.The events in question had already passed, rendering several prayers infructuous.Media regulation issues must be addressed through existing statutory mechanisms..5. BJP Minister Nitesh Rane's speech.Nature of allegationsThe petition sought registration of an FIR relating to inflammatory speeches allegedly delivered at a Sakal Hindu Samaj event in Mumbai in March 2024.The speeches were alleged to target members of the Muslim community. .Procedural backgroundThe matter was filed directly before the Supreme Court..Why the Court dismissed the caseThe Court held that:The petitioner had bypassed available statutory remedies.The proper course was to approach the police first and then approach the magistrate if necessary.Extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked without exhausting these remedies..6. Haridwar and Delhi Dharam Sansad speeches.Nature of allegationsThis case involved allegations of hate crimes and speeches delivered between December 2021, at assemblies in Haridwar and Delhi, which allegedly called for violence against the Muslim community. .Procedural backgroundThe matter was filed directly before the Supreme Court as a writ petition seeking monitoring of investigation and prosecution..Why the Court dismissed the caseThe Court held that:Like the Nitesh Rane case, existing statutory framework already provides remedies to address hate speech.Continuous judicial monitoring of such incidents was not warranted.Courts cannot maintain a "continuing mandamus" or indefinite supervision over individual criminal matters..7. A batch of cases listing 55 different instances of hate speech.Nature of allegationsThe petition listed 55 alleged hate speech incidents across various States.It sought initiation of contempt proceedings against police for not registering FIRs. .Procedural backgroundThe matter was filed as a contempt petition alleging violation of earlier Supreme Court directions wherein it had directed the police to register FIRs in hate speech cases on their own motion, without waiting for formal complaints..Why the Court closed the caseThe Court found that:The petitioners had not approached local authorities in several instances.Complaints had not been formally submitted to the police.Failure to register an FIR suo motu cannot be deemed "contempt" if the matter was never brought to the notice of the police..The Court noted that while it would not issue a "continuing mandamus" to monitor every instance of hate speech, the preservation of "fraternity" and "dignity" remains a collective constitutional duty. It left it open to the Central government to consider if further legislative measures, as recommended by the 267th Law Commission Report, are warranted to meet evolving societal challenges. .[Read Judgment]
