The Supreme Court on Monday held that “persons of influence”, from top government functionaries to political leaders to “credible” TV anchors, owe a duty to society to choose their words and not slip into hate speech.
A Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjeev Khanna said the impact of hate speech depended on the person who uttered the words.
“A speech by ‘a person of influence’ such as a top government or executive functionary, Opposition leader, political or social leader of following, or a credible anchor on a TV show carries a far more credibility and impact than a statement made by a common person on the street,” Justice Khanna, who wrote the 128-page judgment, observed.
The verdict refused to quash the several FIRs of hate speech registered against TV host Amish Devgan, who made derogatory remarks about a Sufi saint on air. The court said he was more of a “co-participant” than a “mere host” during the show.
“Persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they yield on general public or the specific class to which they belong, owe a duty and have to be more responsible... They are expected to know and perceive the meaning conveyed by the words spoken or written, including the possible meaning that is likely to be conveyed. With experience and knowledge, they are expected to have a higher level of communication skills,” Justice Khanna reasoned.
Unlike a common man “driven by anger, emotions, wrong perceptions or mis-information”, the judgment said it was only reasonable to expect that these “persons of influence” are careful in using the words that convey their intent.
The court said in “a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality”.
Distinguishing the fundamental right of free speech from the criminal offence of hate speech, Justice Khanna said the former included the right to criticise government policies while the latter focused on creating and spreading hatred against a targeted group.
The court said the purpose of criminalising hate speech was to protect the dignity of the individual.
“Dignity of individual and unity and integrity of the nation are linked, one in the form of rights of individuals and other in the form of individual’s obligation to others to ensure unity and integrity of the nation,” Justice Khanna wrote.
