The Supreme Court said that Indian law has enough provisions to deal with hate speech cases and that courts cannot step in to create new offences or rewrite the criminal law. The observation came while the top court was hearing a group of petitions that asked for fresh guidelines and stronger judicial directions on handling hate speech across the country.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment and turned down the request for issuing additional directions. The court said that deciding what should be treated as a crime and what punishment should follow is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.

It also said that the Constitution assigns different responsibilities to different parts of the state, and because of that setup, courts cannot create new criminal offences on their own.

Existing laws cover hate speech

During the hearing, the bench observed that present criminal laws address acts that fall under the category of hate speech. According to the court’s view, existing laws cover the issue, so there is no need for judicial intervention in the form of new guidelines.

It pointed out that past judgments of the Supreme Court have held that courts can interpret laws and ensure enforcement of fundamental rights, but they cannot step into the role of lawmakers.

The bench also explained that prescribing punishments or expanding the definition of crimes is within the domain of Parliament and state legislatures.

It added that courts are not empowered to compel the creation of new laws, even if petitions raise concerns about social issues such as hate speech.

Legislature free to examine need for new law

At the same time, the apex court left the door open for future legislative action. It said that the central government and other law-making authorities are free to assess whether existing provisions need to be updated or whether new legal measures should be introduced in response to changing social conditions.

The bench referred to suggestions made in the Law Commission’s 267th report submitted in March 2017, which had examined hate speech and possible legal responses. It said that these recommendations could be studied by the government while deciding whether any policy or legal reform is required.

Policy debate left to lawmakers

The petitions before the court had sought guidelines to deal with hate speech cases more uniformly across states and institutions. However, the court declined to issue such directions and stated that doing so would go beyond its constitutional limits.

With this ruling, the top court has placed the responsibility squarely on the legislature to decide if further legal changes are needed. The court has made its position clear that the existing criminal law is adequate to deal with such cases, and any expansion of it must come through the elected law-making process rather than judicial orders.