The Tehseen Poonawala judgment had seen the top court issue a slew of guidelines for States, the police to prevent, control and deter mob violence and lynchings.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday (November 25, 2025) it was not inclined to legislate over or monitor every incident of hate speech across the country.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said police stations and State High Courts were in place and competent to deal with them.
The oral observations from the Bench came almost seven years after the Supreme Court had condemned hate crimes in 2018. The court had declared it the state’s “sacrosanct duty” to protect the dignity and lives of citizens from hate crimes.
The Tehseen Poonawala judgment had seen the top court issue a slew of guidelines for States, the police to prevent, control and deter mob violence and lynchings.
Four years later, in October 2022, witnessing the unabated ferocity of hate crimes, the Supreme Court had rued the “tragic” level to which “we have reduced religion to” in the 21st century. It had said a “climate of hate prevails in the country”.
The court had directed the police and authorities to suo motu register cases against hate speech offenders without waiting for someone to file formal complaints.
On Tuesday (November 25, 2025), the Bench of Justices Nath and Mehta was hearing a plea filed by journalist Qurban Ali and others, quoting instances of systematic ostracisation of the Muslim community in various States.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, their counsel, also referred to an affidavit alleging that a Minister in Assam, following the electoral win of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Bihar, shared a post saying that “Bihar approves of Gobi farming”. The counsel alleged this was in reference to the 1989 Bhagalpur massacre in which several members of the minority community were killed and their bodies buried in a cauliflower field.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned why public interest litigation petitions against hate speech were filed in the cause of only one faith. He said hate speech was not confined to berating only one particular faith.
Mr. Pasha said the state certainly needed no assistance from the petitioners to know hate crimes were happening.
“I need not be the one to inform the state that hate speech is happening and action needs to be taken. That is the obligation of the state. If the state had the zeal, I need not have troubled Your Lordships in the Supreme Court,” Mr. Pasha replied.
Published – November 25, 2025 09:38 pm IST
