Introduction
A poor Indian citizen such as Sunil Shukla has petitioned the Supreme Court of India with his grievances on less than a year ago with regards to alleged hate speech that was given by the MNS leader Raj Thackeray. The petitioner submitted that the speech was against North Indians and took place in various places of Mumbai in shooting. However, the Supreme Court instead told Shukla to go to the Bombay High Court where the matter concerning hate speech is supposed to be dealt with first.
History of Hate Speech Case
Raj Thackeray is also believed to have made a hate speech at Gudi Padwa rallies, held one such rally on March 30, at which comments were passed against the North Indians, in particular Hindu speaking migrants in general. The speech was later followed by Sunil Shukla, the president of the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena who reported being threatened, his office attacked and threatened to violence.
Although complaining to the higher officials in the police as well as state authorities, Shukla accused that no FIR was lodged. Alone and having no relief, he threw himself before the Supreme Court demanding the intervention of judicial relief on the issue of the hate speech.
Observations of other Hate Speech by Supreme Court
The bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice B.R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran raised doubts on why Shukla skipped the Bombay High Court and went directly to boldly invoke the jurisdiction of the apex court. The bench was directly and bluntly questioning the Bombay High Court asking it whether it was holiday because they wanted to deal with issues of hate speech and hat which involves issues of Republic.
On this observation, Shukla abandoned his petition with the freedom to file before the Bombay High Court. Notably, the Supreme Court made no remarks about the question of the merit of the accusations of hate speech.
Lawful Significance of regulation of hate Speech
This incident again brings out the prominence that courts in India take hate speech. Although free speech has been granted in Article 19 of the constitution, it does not cover statements that would have resulted in hatred among the communities or violence and enmity in such entities. The decision of the case highlights that the presuppositions of hate speech should be considered within the framework of the established judicial hierarchy, that is, starting with the interested High Court.
The Supreme Court has also checked that the matter of hate speech is first subjected to the state level by sending Shukla to the Bombay High Court where evidence is more likely to be studied in context and evaluated.
Conclusion
Judicial verdict in the case of Sunil Shukla vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. highlights the attitude of judiciary towards the cases of hate speech: the maintenance of both procedural discipline and recognition of judicial hierarchy. Although the accusations of hate speech present very serious consequences in the social cohesion, the case will now be heard by the Bombay High Court. The ruling is a lesson that the fight against the hate speech has to be considered purely legally and in an organized legal reaction.