PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                           [2014] 4 S.C.R. 446

A                   PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN
                                      v.
                        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                   (Writ Petiton (C) No. 157 of 2013)
                            MARCH 12, 2014
B
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, M.Y. EQBAL AND
                         A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

         CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
c
          Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38; Article 51-A
    (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (i), (j) - Hate speeches delivered by elected
    representatives, political and religious leaders mainly based
    on religion, caste, region or ethnicity - Writ petition seeking
0   stringent pre-emptory action on the part of Central and State
    Governments on the ground that the hate speeches militate
    against the Constitutional idea of fraternity and violates
    Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 and are in
    derogation of the fundamental duties under Article 51-A (a),
E   (b), (c), (e), (f), (i), (j) - Held: The statutory provisions and
    particularly the penal laws provide sufficient remedy to curb
    the menace of "hate speeches" - Thus, person aggrieved
    must resort to the remedy provided under a particular statute
    - The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather
    a lack of their effective execution - Therefore, the executive
F   as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the
    already existing legal regime - Effective regulation of "hate
    speeches" at all levels is required as the authors of such
    speeches can be booked under the existing penal law and
    all the law enforcing agencies must· ensure that the existing
G   law is not rendered a dead letter - Enforcement of the
    provisions is required being in consonance with the
    proposition "salus reipublicae suprema lex" (safety of the state
    is the supreme law) - Thus, petition calling for issuing certain

H                                   446
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF !NOIA 447


directions which are incapable of enforcement/execution           A
should not be entertained - The National Human Rights
Commission would be well within its power if it decides to
initiate suo-motu proceedings against the alleged authors of
hate speech - Penal Cocfe, 1860 - ss. 124A, 153A, 1538,
295A, 298, 505(2) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled            8
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Representation
of People Act - ss.123(3), 125 - Maxim "salus reipublicae
supreme lex".

     HUMAN RIGHTS:
                                                                  c
     Hate speech - Steps taken by Government - Held: The
Indian legal framework has enacted several statutory
provisions dealing with the subject - In addition thereto, the
Central Government has always provided support to the State
Governments and Union Territory administrations in several o
ways to maintain communal harmony in the country and in
case of need the Central Government also sends advisories
in this regard from time to time - The Central Government
has .also issued revised guidelines to promote communal
harmony to)he States and Union Territories in 2008 which E
provides inter-alia that strict action should be taken against
anyone inflaming passions and stroking communal tension
by intemperate and inflammatory speeches and utterances
-Penal Code, 1860 makes offences related to religion
punishable - Similarly, intentional public humiliation of F
members of the 'Scheduled Castes' and 'Scheduled Tribes'
is penalized under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - R.P. Act also
restrains any political party or the candidate to create feelings
of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of
India by making such an act a punishable offence - Article G
20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights,
1966 (ICCPR) restrains advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that may ·result in incitement for
discrimination, hostility or violence classifying it as prohibited
                                                                   H
    448     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A by law - Similarly Articles 4 and 6 of the International
  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
  Discrimination, 1965 (ICERD) prohibits the elements of hate
  speech and mandates the member states to make a law
  prohibiting any kind of hate speech through a suitable
8 framework of law - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 124A, 153A, 1538,
  295A, 298, 505(2) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
  Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Representation
  of People Act - ss.123(3), 125.

        Hate speech - Duty of courts - Held: Courts must apply
C the hate speech prohibition objectively -The question courts
  must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context
  and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing
  the protected group to hatred - The key is to determine the
  likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind
D the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.

        JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: Constitution clearly
  provides for separation of powers and the court merely applies
  the law that it gets from the legislature - If there is a law,
E Judges can certainly enforce it, but Judges cannot create a
  law and seek to enforce it - The court cannot re-write, re-cast
  or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has
  no power to legislate -However, of lately, judicial activism of
  the superior courts in India has raised pubic eyebrow time and
  again - The directions are issued by the Court only when
F there has been a total vacuum in law, i.e. complete absence
  of active law to provide for the effective enforcement of a basic
  human right - In case there is inaction on the part of the
  executive for whatsoever reason, the court has stepped in, in
  exercise of its constitutional obligations to enforce the law -
G In case of vacuum of legal regime to deal with a particular
  situation the court may issue guidelines to provide absolution
  till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by
  enacting proper legislation to cover the field - Thus, direction
  can be issued only in a situation where the will of the elected
H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 449


legislature has not yet been expressed - Judicial activism -      A
Judicial review.

     Words and phrases: Hate speech - Meaning and its
effect - Held: Hate speech is an effort to marginalise
individuals based on their membership in a group - Using          8
expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech
seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the
majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within
society - Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing
distress to individual group members - It can have a societal     C
impact - Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad
attacks on vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to
ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most
extreme cases, to genocide - Hate speech a/so impacts a
protected group's ability to respond to the substantive ideas
under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full     D
participation in our democracy.

     The instant writ petition in the nature of public
interest has been preferred by an organisation dedicated
to the welfare of inter-state migrants, seeking exercise of E
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 to remedy the concerns that
have arisen because of "hate speeches" on the ground
that these "hate speeches" delivered by elected
representatives, political and religious leaders mainly F
based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate
against the Constitutional idea of fraternity and violates
Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the
Constitution and are in derogation of the fundamental
duties under Article 51-A (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (i), (j) of the G
Constitution and, therefore, warrant stringent pre-
emptory action on the part of Central and State
Governments.

    Disposing of the writ petition, the court
                                                                  H
    450    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A        HELD: 1. The Supreme Court of Canada succeeded
    in bringing out the "human rights" obligations leading to
    control on publication of "hate speeches" for protection
    of human rights defining the expression "hate speech"
    observing that the definition of "hatred" set out in
s   *Canada (Human Rights Commission) with some
    modifications, provides a workable approach to
    interpreting the word "hatred" as is used in legislative
    provisions prohibiting hate speech. Three main
    prescriptions must be followed. First, courts must apply
c   the hate speech prohibition objectively. The question
    courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware
    of the context and circumstances, would view the
    expression as exposing the protected group to hatred.
    Second, the legislative term "hatred" or "hatred or
    contempt" must be interpreted as being restricted to
D   those extreme manifestations of the emotion described
    by the words "detestation" and "vilification". This filters
    out expression which, while repugnant and offensive,
    does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimisation
    and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other
E   harmful effects. Third, tribunals must focus their analysis
    on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether
    it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to
    hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being
    expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the
F   expression, and whether or not the author of the
    expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory
    treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely
    effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind
    the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate
G   discrimination. [Para 6] [465-A-G]
        Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott
    2013 SCC 11; *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v.
    Taylor (1990) 3 SCR 892 -referred to.
H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 451


     2. Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals    A
based on their membership in a group. Using expression
that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to
delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority,
reducing their social standing and acceptance within
society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing          B
distress to individual group members. It can have a
societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for
later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range from
discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation,
violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.          C
Hate speech also impacts a protected group's ability to
respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby
placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our
democracy. Given such disastrous consequences of hate
speeches, the Indian legal framework has enacted several
statutory provisions dealing with the subject. In addition     D
thereto, the Central Government has always provided
support to the State Governments and Union Territory
administrations in several ways to maintain communal
harmony in the country and in case of need the Central
Government also sends advisories in this regard from           E
time to time. However, in such cases, as police and
public order being a State subject under the 7th Schedule
of Constitution, the responsibility of registration and
prosecution of crime including those involved in hate
speeches, primarily rests with the respective State            F
Governments. [Para 7, 10, 11) [465-G-H; 466-A-B, F; 467-
F-G]

   Ramesh v. Union of India-AIR 1988 SC 775: 1988 ( 2 )
SCR 1011 - relied on.                                          G
    Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. - referred to.

    3.1. The Central Government has also issued revised
guidelines to promote communal harmony to the States
and Union Territories in 2008 which provides inter-alia        H
    452    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A that strict action should be taken against anyone
  inflaming passions and stroking communal tension by
  intemperate and inflammatory speeches and utterances.
  The "Guidelines On Communal Harmony, 2008" issued
  by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India seek
8 to  prevent and avoid communal disturbances/riots and
  in the event of such disturbances occurring, action to
  control the same and measures to provide assistance
  and relief to the affected persons are provided therein
  including rehabilitation. The detailed guidelines have
  been issued to take preventive/remedial measures and to
C impose responsibilities of the administration and to
  enforce the same. Various modalities have been
  formulated to deal with the issue which have been
  emphasised on participation of the stake holders. Section
  124A of Penal Code, 1860 makes sedition an offence
D punishable, I.e., when any person attempts to bring into
  hatred or contempt or attempts to excite disaffection
  towards the Government established by law. [Paras 12
  and 13] [467-H; 468-A-E]
E       Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955:
    1962 Suppl. SCR 769 - relied on.
       3.2. Sections 153A and 1538 IPC makes any act
  which promotes enmity between the groups on grounds
  of religions and race etc. or which are prejudicial to
F national integration punishable. The purpose of
  enactment of such a provision was to "check fissiparous
  communal and separatist tendencies and secure
  fraternity so as to ensure the dignity of the individual and
  the unity of the nation". Undoubtedly, religious freedom
G may be accompanied by liberty of expression of religious
  opinions together with the liberty to reasonably criticise
  the religious beliefs of others, but as has been held by
  courts time and again, with powers come responsibility.
  Section 295A IPC deals with offences related to religion
H and provides for a punishment upto 3 years for speech,
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 453


writings or signs which are made with deliberate and            A
malicious intention to insult the religion or the religious
beliefs of any class of citizens. Likewise Section 298 IPC
provides that any act with deliberate and malicious
intention of hurting the religious feelings of any person
is punishable. However, Section 295A IPC deals with far         B
more serious offences. Furthermore, Section 505(2) IPC
provides that making statements that create or promote
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of
society is a punishable offence involving imprisonment
upto three years or fine or both. The Protection of Civil       c
Rights Act 1955, which was enacted to supplement the
constitutional mandate of abolishing 'untouchability' in
India, contains provisions penalizing hate speech
against the historically marginalised 'dalit' communities.
Section 7(1)(c) of the Act prohibits the incitement or          0
encouragement of the practice of 'untouchability' in any
form (by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or
by visible representations or otherwise) by any person
or class of persons or the public generally. Similarly,
intentional public humiliation of members of the
                                                                E
'Scheduled Castes' and 'Scheduled Tribes' is penalized
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 123(3) of the
R.P. Act, provides inter-alia that no party or candidate
shall appeal for vote on the ground of religion, race, caste,
community, language etc. Section 125 of the R.P.Act             F
further restrains any political party or the candidate to
create feelings of enmity or hatred between different
classes of citizens of India by making such an act a
punishable offence. [Paras 14 to 18] [468-F-H; 469-A-H]

   Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620: 1957
SCR 860 - relied on.
   4. Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil
& Political Rights, 1966 ·(ICCPR) restrains advocacy of         H
   454     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A national, racial or religious hatred that may result in
  incitement for discrimination, hostility or violence
  classifying it as prohibited by law. Similarly Articles 4 and
  6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All
  Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (ICERD) prohibits
B the elements of hate speech and mandates the member
  states to make a law prohibiting any kind of hate speech
  through a suitable framework of law. Thus, it is evident
  that the Legislature had already provided sufficient and
  effective remedy for prosecution of the author, who
c indulge in such activities. In spite of this, petitioner
  sought reliefs which tantamount to legislation. This Court
  has persistently held that our Constitution clearly
  provides for separation of powers and the court merely
  applies the law that it gets from the legislature.
  Consequently, the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition has
0
  insisted that the judges should only reflect the law
  regardless of the anticipated consequences,
  considerations of fairness or public policy and the judge
  is simply not authorised to legislate law. "If there is a law,
E Judges can certainly enforce it, but Judges cannot create
  a law and seek to enforce it." The court cannot re-write,
  re-cast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason
  that it has no power to legislate. The very power to
  legislate has not been conferred on the courts. However,
  of lately, judicial activism of the superior courts in India
F has raised pubic eyebrow time and again. Though judicial
  activism is regarded as the active interpretation of an
  existing provision with the view of enhancing the utility
  of legislation for social betterment in accordance with the
  Constitution, the courts under its garb have actively
G strived to achieve the constitutional aspirations of socio-
  economic justice. In many cases, this Court issued
  various guidelines/directions to prevent fraud upon the
  statutes, or when it was found that certain beneficiary
  provisions were being mis-used by the undeserving
H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 455


persons, depriving the legitimate claims of eligible          A
persons. [Para 19 and 20] [470-A-H; 471-A]

     S.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 149:
 1982 SCR 365; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India &
Ors. AIR 1984 SC 802: 1984 ( 2) SCR 67; Union of India & B
Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal AIR 1992 SC 96; Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of
India AIR 1994 SC 268: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659;
Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1997 SC
30111997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404; Divisional Manager, Aravali C
Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1 SCC
683 2007 (12) SCR 1084; Common Cause (A Regd.
Society) v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 511: 2008 (6)
 SCR 262; Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab (1995) 6 SCC
614: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 16 - relied on.
                                                              D
     5. This Court has consistently clarified that the
directions have been issued by the Court only when
there has been a total vacuum in law, i.e. complete
absence of active law to provide for the effective
enforcement of a basic human right. In case there is          E
inaction on the part of the executive for whatsoever
reason, the court has stepped in, in exercise of its
constitutional obligations to enforce the law. In case of
vacuum of legal regime to deal with a particular situation
the court may issue guidelines to provide absolution till     F
such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by
enacting proper legislation to cover the field. Thus,
direction can be issued only in a situation where the will
of the elected legislature has not yet been expressed.
Further, the court should not grant a relief or pass order/   G
direction which is not capable of implementation. [Paras
22 and 23] [471-F-H; 472-A]

   State of U.P. & Anr. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam
Sangarsh Samiti & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 675: 2008 (7)
SCR 536 - relied on.                                          H
    456    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A      6. Judicial review is subject to the principles of
  judicial restraint and must not become unmanageable in
  other aspects. It is desirable to put reasonable prohibition
  on unwarranted actions but there may arise difficulty in
  confining the prohibition to some manageable standard
B and in doing so, it may encompass all sorts of speeches
  which needs to be avoided . For a long time the US courts
  were content in upholding legislations curtailing "hate
  speech" and related issues. However, of lately, the courts
  have shifted gears thereby paving the way for myriad of
c rulings which side with individual freedom of speech and
  expression as opposed to the order of a manageable
  society. [Paras 24, 25] [472-D, E-G]

       King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18;
  State ofHaryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992
D SC 604: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259; Akhilesh Yadav Etc. v.
  Vishwanath Chaturvedi (2013) 2 SCC 1: 2012 (13) SCR 949
  - relied on.

       Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952);
E Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969); R.A. V. v. City of
  St. Paul 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992) - referred to.

       7. If any action is taken by any person which is
  arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise in contravention of
F any statutory provisions or penal law, the court can grant
  relief keeping in view the evidence before it and
  considering the statutory provisions involved. However,
  the court should not pass any judicially unmanageable
  order which is incapable of enforcement. [Para 26] [473-
  A-B]
G
       8. The statutory provisions and particularly the penal
  law provide sufficient remedy to curb the menace of
  "hate speeches". Thus, person aggrieved must resort to
  the remedy provided under a particular statute. The root
H of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 457


lack of their effective execution. Therefore, the executive     A
as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing
the already existing legal regime. Effective regulation of
"hate speeches" at all levels is required as the authors
of such speeches can be booked under the existing
penal law and all the law enforcing agencies must ensure        B
that the existing law is not rendered a dead letter.
Enforcement of the said provisions is required being in
consonance with the proposition "salus reipublicae
suprema lex" (safety of the state is the supreme law).
Thus, a petition calling for issuing certain directions         c
which are incapable of enforcement/execution should not
be entertained. The National Human Rights Commission
would be well within its power if it decides to initiate suo-
motu proceedings against the alleged authors of hate
speech. However, in view of the fact that the Law               0
Commission has undertaken the study as to whether the
Election Commission should be conferred the power to
de-recognise a political party disqualifying it or its
members, if a party or its members commit any of such
offences, the Law Commission may also examine the               E
issues raised thoroughly and also to consider, if it deems
proper, defining the expression "hate speech" and make
recommendations to the Parliament to strengthen the
Election Commission to curb the menace of "hate
speeches" irrespective of whenever made. [Para 27 and
28) [473-C-H; 474-A]                                            F

                    Case Law Reference:
 2013 sec 11                   Referred to     Para 6
 (1990) 3 SCR 892              Referred to     Para 6           G
 1988 (2) SCR 1011             Relied on       Para 9
 1962 Suppl. SCR 769           Relied on       Para 13
 1957 SCR 860                  Relied on       Para 15
 1982 SCR 365                  Relied on       Para 20          H
    458      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 4 S.C.R.

A    1984 (2) SCR 67                  Relied on      Para 20
     AIR 1992 SC 96                   Relied on      Para 20
     1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 Relied on               Para 20
     1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 Relied on               Para 20
B
     2007 (12) SCR 1084               Relied on      Para 20
     2008 (6) SCR 262                 Relied on      Para 20
     1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 16           Relied on      Para 21
c
     2008 (7) SCR 536                 Relied on      Para 23
     AIR 1945 PC 18                   Relied on      Para 24
     1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 Relied on               Para 24
D    2012 (13) SCR 949                Relied on      Para 24
       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
    Constitution of Inda.

          Writ Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2013.
E
       Mohan Jain, Sidharth Luthra, ASGs, Basava Prabhu Patil,
  B.H. Marlapalle, Raj Singh Rana, Ajay Bansal, Manjit Singh,
  Gaurav Bhatia, Suryanarayana Singh, AAGs, Ravi Chandra
  Prakash, Purushottam Sharma, Tripathi, Filza Moonis, Mukesh
F Kr. Singh, B. Subramanaya Prasad LN. Dhiram Sharma,
  Durgadutt, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Luv Kumar, Narendra Kumar
  Goyal, Soumitra G. Chaudhri, Anip Sachthey, Avijit
  Bhattacharjee, Gopal Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, K.N.
  Madhusoodhanan, T.G. Naryanan Nair, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf
G Khan (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.) Kirti Renu Mishra, Apurva
  Upmanyu, Asha Gopalan Nair, Abhishek Kumar Pandey,
  Jayesh Gaurav, Gopal Prasad, Krishna Sarma, Navnit Kumar
  (for Corporate Law Group), S.S. Shamshery, Bharat Sood,
  Varun Punia, Sandeep Singh, Ritesh Prakash Yadav,
H Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Amit Sharma, Ruchi Kohli, C.D.
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 459


Singh, Apoorv Kurup, Sakshi Kakkar, Kuldip Singh, Rajiv              A
Nanda, Anuvrat Sharma, Balaji Srinivasan, Liz Mathew, M.F.
Philip, Samir Ali Khan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Dr. Sudhir Bisla,
Sumitra Bisla, Ranjan Mukerjee, Subhro Sanyal, D.K. Thakur,
D.S. Mahra, Richa Pandey, Meenakshi Arora, Mohit D. Ram,
D.L. Chidananda, Aditya Singhla, B. Krishna Prasad, J.S.             s
Chhabra, Pardam Singh, Gaurav Yadav, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit
Kumar Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Ashok Kumar Singh,
Vivekta Singh, Nupur Chaudhary, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj
Biswas, Bansuri Swaraj, Nirnimesh Dube, Mukesh Verma, Ravi
Prakash Mehrotra, Pragati Neekhra, R. Rakesh Sharma, B.              c
Balaji for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. The instant writ petition has
been preferred, by an organisation dedicated to the welfare of       D
inter-state migrants, in the nature of public interest seeking
exercise of this court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Constitution') to remedy the concerns that have arisen
because of "hate speeches", through the following prayers:           E

      a.    Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
            of mandamus declaring hate/derogatory speeches
            made by people representatives/political/religious
            leaders on religion, caste, region and ethnic lines
            are violative of Articles 14 (Equality before Law),      F
            15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
            religion, race, caste or place of birth), 16 (Equality
            in matters of public employment), 19 (Protection of
            certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.),
            21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of          G
            Fundamental Rights read with Article 38 of the
            Directive Principles of State Policy and
            Fundamental Duties under Article 51-A(a), (b), (c),
            (e), (f), (i) & (j) of the Constitution and merits
            stringent pre-emptory action on part of the Central      H
    460        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A               and State governments;

          b.    Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
                of mandamus declaring hate/derogatory speeches
                made on the lines of religion, caste, race and place
                of birth (region) to be an act against the Union of
B
                India which undermines the unity and integrity of the
                country and militates against non-discrimination
                and fraternity;

          c.    Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
c               of mandamus declaring that "Fraternity" forms part
                of "Basic Structure" of the Constitution;

          d.    Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
                of mandamus directing mandatory suo motu
D               registration of FIR against authors of hate/
                derogatory speeches made on the lines of religion,
                caste, race and place ·Of birth (region) by the Union
                and State Governments, in the alternative,
                constitution of a committee by the Union of India in
                consultation with this Court for taking cognizance of
E
                hate/derogatory speeches delivered within the
                territory of India with the power to recommend
                initiation of criminal proceeding against the authors;

          e.    Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
F               of mandamus directing mandatory imposition of
                "gag order" restraining the author of hate/
                derogatory speeches made on the lines of religion,
                caste, race and place of birth (region) from
                addressing the public anywhere within the territory
G               of India till the disposal of the criminal proceeding
                initiated against him as a necessary pre-condition
                for grant of bail by the Magistrate;

          f.    Issue appropriate writ, order._ decree in the nature
                of mandamus directing speedy disposal of criminal
H
PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF !NOIA 461
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
        proceedings against authors of hate/derogatory           A
        speeches made on the lines of religion, caste, race
        and place of birth (region) within a period of 6
        months;

   g.   Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature      B
        of mandamus directing suspension of membership
        of authors of hate/derogatory speeches made on
        the lines of religion, caste, race and place of birth
        (region) from the Union/State Legislature and other
        elected bodies till the final disposal of the criminal
        proceedings;
                                                                 c
   h.   Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
        of mandamus directing termination of membership
        of authors of hate/derogatory speech made on the
        lines of religion, caste, race and place of birth        D
        (region) from the Union/State Legislature and other
        elected bodies if found guilty;

   i.   Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
        of mandamus directing de-recognition of the
                                                                 E
        political party of authors of hate/derogatory speech
        made on the lines of religion, caste, race and place
        of birth (region) by the Election Commission of India
        where the author is heading the political party in
        exercise of power vested inter-alia under Article
                                                                 F
        324 of the Constitution read with Sections 29A(5),
        123(3) of the Representation of the People Act,
        1951 and Section 16A of the Election Symbols
        (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968;

   j.   Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature      G
        of mandamus directing the Union of India to have
        concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute authors of hate/
        derogatory speeches in addition to the States in
        terms of the mandate of Articles 227, 355 read with
        Article 38 of the Constitution which merit stringent     H
    462        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 4 S.C.R.

A                pre-emptory action on part of the Central
                 Government;

          k.     Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature
                 of mandamus directing the Union of India and
                 respective States to enforce Fundamental Duties
B
                 under Article 51-A (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (i) & 0) of the
                 Constitution by taking proactive steps in promoting
                 national integration and harmony amongst the
                 citizens of India;

c         I.     Issue such other appropriate writ or direction that
                 may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts
                 and circumstances of the case and in the interest
                 of justice."

0       2. Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel
  appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the
  reliefs sought by the petitioner is in consonance with the
  scheme of our Constitution as the "hate speeches" delivered
  by elected representatives, political and religious leaders
E mainly based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate
  against the Constitutional idea of fraternity and violates Articles
  14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution and further
  is in derogation of the fundamental duties under Article 51-A
  (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (i), 0) of the Constitution and therefore
  warrant stringent pre-emptory action on the part of Central and
F State Governments. The existing law dealing with the subject
  matter is not sufficient to cope with the menace of "hate
  speeches". Hate/derogatory speech has not been defined
  under any penal law. Accolade is given to the author of such
  speeches and they also get political patronage. In such fact-
G situation, this Court cannot remain merely a silent spectator,
  rather has to play an important role and issue guidelines/
  directions in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the
  Constitution which are necessary for the said purpose as the
  existing legal frame work is not sufficient to control the menace
H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 463
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
of "hate speeches". Therefore, this Court should grant aforesaid       A
reliefs.

     3. Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG, Shri Rajiv Nanda,
Shri Gaurav Bhatia, learned AAG for the State of U.P., Ms.
Asha Gopalan Nair, Shri Gopal Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Shri
                                                                       8
C.D. Singh, and all other standing counsel appearing on behalf
of the respective States, have submitted that there are various
statutory provisions dealing with the subject matter and the
issue involved herein is a question of enforcement of the said
statutory provisions and any person aggrieved can put the law          C
into motion in such eventualities.

      Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG, has further submitted
that the issue of decriminalisation of politics as part of electoral
reforms is under consideration before this Court in Writ Petition
(C) No. 536 of 2011 and in the said matter, this Court had             D
framed certain issues and referred the matter to the Law
Commission of India to study the subject with regard to the
Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as
"RP.Act") and may make appropriate suggestions (report) to
the Government of India vide order dated 16.12.2013 and, thus,         E
Shri Luthra has suggested that in case there is some deficiency
in law, this Court should not act as super-legislature, rather
make a recommendation to the Law Commission to undertake
further study and submit its report to the Government of India
for its consideration/acceptance.                                      F

     4. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the Election Commission of India, has submitted
that there are various provisions like Section 29A(5) & (7) of
the R.P. Act empowering the Commission to examine the
documents filed by a political party at the time of its registration   G
and the application so filed must be accompanied by its
constitution/rules which should contain a specific provision to
the effect that the association/body would bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and
to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy and           H
    464      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A that they would uph.old the sovereignty, integrity and unity of
  India. However, it has been suggested that Election
  Commission does not have the power to deregister/
  derecognise a political party under the R.P. Act once it has been
  registered. A registered political party is entitled to recognition
B as a State or national party only upon fulfilling the conditions
  laid down in paragraph 6A or 68 of the Election Symbols
  (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred
  to as "Symbols Order"). The Election Commission in exercise
  of its powers under Paragraph 16A of Symbols Order, can take
c appropriate action against a political party on its failure to
  observe model code of conduct or in case the party fails to
  observe or follow the lawful directions and instructions of the
  Election Commission. The model code of conduct provides
  certain guidelines inter-alia that no party or candidate shall
  indulge in any activity which may aggravate existing differences
0 or create mutual hatred or cause tension between two different
  castes and communities, religious or linguistic and no political
  party shall make an appeal on the basis of caste or communal
  feelings for securing votes. It further provides that no religious
  place shall be used as forum for election propaganda. However,
E the Election Commission only has power to control hate
  speeches during the subsistence of the code of conduct and
  not otherwise.

         5. The Law Commission of India has prepared a
F   consultation paper and studied the matter further on various
    issues including whether the existing provisions (Constitutional
    or Statutory) relating to disqualification to contest elections need
    to be amended?

       The Law Commission had earlier in its 1998
G recommendations emphasised on the need to strengthen the
  provision relating to disqualification and in view thereof, it has
  been submitted by Ms. Arora that it is only for the legislature to
  amend the law and empower the Election Commission to
  perform a balancing act in following the mandate of the relevant
H Constitutional and statutory provisions.
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 465
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      6. The Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan                   A
 (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott 2013 SCC 11,
succeeded in bringing out the "human rights" obligations
 leading to control on publication of "hate speeches" for
protection of human rights defining the expression "hate
speech" observing that the definition of "hatred" set out in           B
 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, (1990) 3 SCR
892, with some modifications, provides a workable approach
to interpreting the word "hatred" as is used in legislative
provisions prohibiting hate speech. Three main prescriptions
must be followed. First, courts must apply the hate speech             c
prohibition objectively. The question courts must ask is whether
a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances,
would view the expression as exposing the protected group to
hatred. Second, the legislative term "hatred" or "hatred or
contempt" must be interpreted as being restricted to those             0
extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words
"detestation" and "vilification". This filters out expression which,
while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of
abhorrence, delegitimisation and rejection that risks causing
discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, tribunals must         E
focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue,
namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or
group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being
expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression,
and wh~ther or not the author of the expression intended to
incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key       F
is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its
audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce
or eliminate discrimination.

     7. Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals            G
based on their membership in a group. Using expression that
exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise
group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social
standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech,
therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group           H
     466       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 4 S.C.R.


 A   members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the
     groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range
     from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation,
     violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate
     speech also impacts a protected group's ability to respond to
 B   the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious
     barrier to their full participation in our democracy.

          8. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. defines the expression
     'hate speech' as under:

 C          "Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression
            of hatred for some group, such as a particular race,
            especially in circumstances in which the communication is
            likely to provoke violence."

.0        9. In Ramesh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775, while
     dealing with the subject, this Court observed:

            ".. that the effect of the words must be judged from the
            standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and
            courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating
 E          minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point
            of view."

          10. Given such disastrous consequences of hate
     speeches, the Indian legal framework has enacted several
F    statutory provisions dealing with the subject which are referred
     to as under:

       SI.No.                 Statute                Provisions
       1.         Indian Penal Code, 1860      Sections 124A, 153A,
G                                              1538, 295-A, 298,
                                               505(1), 505(2)
       2.        The Representation of         Sections 8, 123 (3A),
                 People Act, 1951              125

H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                 467
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
  3.        Information Technology Act, Sections 66A, 69, 69J!    A
            2000 & Information          Rule 3(2)(b), Rule
            Technology (Intermediaries 3(2)(i)
            guidelines) Rules, 2011

  4.        Code of Criminal             Sections 95, 107, 144
                                                                  8
            Procedure, 1973              151, 160

  5.        Unlawful Activities          Sections 2(f), 10, 11,
            (Prevention) Act, 1967       12

  6.        Protection of Civil Rights   Section 7
            Act, 1955
                                                                  c
  7.        Religious Institutions      Sections 3 and 6
           ·(Prevention of Misuse) Act,
            1980
                                                                  D
  8.        The Cable Television        Sections 5,6,11,12,16
            Networks (Regulation) Act, 17, 19, 20 & Rules
            1995 and The Cable          6&7
            Television Network (Rules),
            1994
                                                                  E
  9.        The Cinematographers Act, Sections 4, 58, 7
            1952

     11. In addition thereto, the Central Government has always
provided support to the State Governments and Union Territory     F
administrations in several ways to maintain communal harmony
in the country and in case of need the Central Government also
sends advisories in this regard from time to time. However, in
such cases, as police and public order being a State subject
under the 7th Schedule of Constitution, the responsibility of
registration and prosecution of crime including those involved    G
in hate speeches, primarily rests with the respective State
Governments.

       12. The Central Government has also issued revised
                                                                  H
    468     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   guidelines to promote communal harmony to the States and
    Union Territories in 2008 which provides inter-alia that strict
    action should be taken against anyone inflaming passions and
    stroking communal tension by intemperate and inflammatory
    speeches and utterances.
B
      The "Guidelines On Communal Harmony, 2008" issued by
  the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India seek to
  prevent and avoid communal disturbances/riots and in the
  event of such disturbances occurring, action to control the same
  and measures to provide assistance and relief to the affected
C persons are provided therein including rehabilitation. The
  detailed guidelines have been issued to take preventive/
  remedial measures and to impose responsibilities of the
  administration and to enforce the same. Various modalities
  have been formulated to deal with the issue which have been
D emphasised on participation of the stake holders.

       13. So far as the statutory provisions, as referred to
  hereinabove, are concerned, Section 124A of Indian Penal
  Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') makes
E sedition an offence punishable, i.e., when any person attempts
  to bring into hatred or contempt or attempts to excite
  disaffection towards the Government established by law. (Vide:
  Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955}

       14. Sections 153A and 1539 IPC makes any act which
F promotes enmity between the groups on grounds of religions
  and race etc. or which are prejudicial to national integration
  punishable. The purpose of enactment of such a provision was
  to "check fissiparous communal an·d separatist tendencies and
  secure fraternity so as to ensure the dignity of the individual and
G the unity of the nation". Undoubtedly, religious freedom may be
  accompanied by liberty of expression of religious opinions
  together with the liberty to reasonably criticise the religious
  beliefs of others, but as has been held by courts time and again,
  with powers come responsibility.
H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                      469
            [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      15. Section 295A IPC deals with offences related to                A
religion and provides for a punishment upto 3_years for speech,
writings or signs which are made with deliberate and malicious
intention to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any class
of citizens. This Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP., AIR
1957 SC 620, has upheld the Constitutional validity of the               B
section.

     16. Likewise Section 298 IPC provides that any act with
deliberate and malicious intention of hurting the religious
feelings of any person is punishable. However,    Section                C
295A IPC deals with far more serious offences.

     Furthermore, Section 505(2) IPC provides that making
statements that create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different classes of society is a punishable offence
involving imprisonment upto three years or fine or both.                 D

     17. The Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, which was
enacted to supplement the constitutional mandate of abolishing
'untouchability' in India, contains provisions penalizing hate
speech against the historically marginalised 'dalit' communities.        E
Section 7(1 )(c) of the Act prohibits the incitement or
encouragement of the practice of 'untouchability' in any form
(by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations or otherwise) by any person or class of persons
or the public generally. Similarly, intentional public humiliation
                                                                         F
of members of the 'Scheduled Castes' and 'Scheduled Tribes'
is penalized under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

      18. Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act, provides inter-alia that
no party or candidate shall appeal for vote on the ground of             G
religion, race, caste, community, language etc.

     Section 125 of the RP.Act further restrains any political
party or the candidate to create feelings of enmity or hatred
between different classes of citizens of India by making such            H
an act a punishable offence.
    470     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A         19. Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil &
    Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) restrains advocacy of national,
    racial or religious hatred that may result in incitement for
    discrimination, hostility or violence classifying it as prohibited
    bylaw.
B
       Similarly Articles 4 and 6 of the International Convention
  on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965
  (ICERD) prohibits the elements of hate speech and mandates
  the member states to make a law prohibiting any kind of hate
C speech through a suitable framework of law.

          20. Thus, it is evident that the Legislature had already
    provided sufficient and effective remedy for prosecution of the
    author, who indulge in such activities. In spite of the above,
    petitioner sought reliefs which tantamount to legislation. This
D   Court has persistently held that our Constitution clearly provides
    for separation of powers and the court merely applies the law
    that it gets from the legislature. Consequently, the Anglo-Saxon
    legal tradition has insisted that the judges should only reflect
    the law regardless of the anticipated consequences,
E   considerations of fairness or public policy and the judge is
    simply not authorised to legislate law. "If there is a law, Judges
    can certainly enforce it, but Judges cannot create a law and
    seek to enforce it." The court cannot re-write, re-cast or reframe
    the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to
F   legislate. The very power to legislate has not been conferred
    on the courts. However, of lately, judicial activism of the superior
    courts in India has raised pubic eyebrow time and again.
    Though judicial activism is regarded as the active interpretation
    of an existing provision with the view of enhancing the utility of
G   legislation for social betterment in accordance with the
    Constitution, the courts under its garb have actively strived to
    achieve the constitutional aspirations of socio-economic justice.
    In many cases, this Court issued various guidelines/directions
    to prevent fraud upon the statutes, or when it was found that
H   certain beneficiary provisions were being mis-used by the
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                    471
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
undeserving persons, depriving the legitimate claims of eligible      A
persons. (See: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1982
SC 149; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors., AIR
1984 SC 802; Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan
Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96; Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268;         B
Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1997 SC
3011: Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v.
Chander Hass & Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 683; and Common
Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 5
sec 511).                                                             c
   21. While explaining the scope of Article 141 of the
Constitution, in Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6
SCC 614, this Court held as under:

     "Their Lordships decisions declare the existing law but          D
     do not enact any fresh law, is not in keeping with the
     plenary function of the Supreme Court under Article 141
     of the Constitution, for the Court is not merely the
     interpreter of the law as existing, but much beyond that.
     The Court as a wing of the State is by itself a source of        E
     law. The law is what the Court says it is."

     22. Be that as it may, this Court has consistently clarified
that the directions have been issued by the Court only when
there has been a total vacuum in law, i.e. complete absence
of active law to provide for the effective enforcement of a basic     F
human right. In case there is inaction on the part of the executive
for whatsoever reason, the court has stepped in, in exercise of
its constitutional obligations to enforce the law. In case of
vacuum of legal regime to deal with a particular situation the
court may issue guidelines to provide absolution till such time       G
as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper
legislation to cover the field. Thus, direction can be issued only
in a situation where the will of the elected legislature has not
yet been expressed.
                                                                      H
    472      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A        23. Further, the court should not grant a relief or pass order/
    direction which is not capable of implementation. This Court in
    State of U.P. & Anr. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam
    Sangarsh Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675, has held as
    under:
B
          "48. To us, one of the considerations in such matters is
          whether an order passed or direction issued is
          susceptible of implementation and enforcement, and
          if it is not implemented whether appropriate proceedings
          including proceedings for wilful disobedience of the order
c         of the Court can be initiated against the opposite party.
          The direction issued by the High Court falls short of this
          test and on that ground also, the order is vulnerable.»
          (Emphasis added)

D        24. Judicial review is subject to the principles of judicial
    restraint and must not become unmanageable in other aspects.
    (Vide: King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC
    18; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. v., AIR
    1992 SC 604; and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. v. Vishwanath
E   ChatuNedi, (2013) 2 SCC 1).

       25. It is desirable to put reasonable prohibition on
  unwarranted actions but there may arise difficulty in confining
  the prohibition to some manageable standard and in doing so,
  it may encompass all sorts of speeches which needs to be
F avoided . For a long time the US courts were content in
  upholding legislations curtailing "hate speech" and related
  issues. However, of lately, the courts have shifted gears thereby
  paving the way for myriad of rulings which side with individual
  freedom of speech and expression as opposed to the order
G of a manageable society. [See: Beauhamais v. Illinois, 343
  U.S. 250 (1952); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969);
  and R.A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992)].

          26. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to
H
 PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 473
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the effect that if any action is taken by any person which is       A
arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise in contravention of any
statutory provisions or penal law, the court can grant relief
keeping in view the evidence before it and considering the
statutory provisions involved. However, the court should not
pass any judicially unmanageable order which is incapable of        B
enforcement.

      27. As referred to herein above, the statutory provisions
and particularly the penal law provide sufficient remedy to curb
the menace of "hate speeches". Thus, person aggrieved must          C
resort to the remedy provided under a particular statute. The
root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack
of their effective execution. Therefore, the executive as well as
civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the already
existing legal regime. Effective regulation of "hate speeches"
at all l!i!vels is required as the authors of such speeches can     D
be booked under the existing penal law and all the law enforcing
agencies must ensure that the existing law is not rendered a
dead letter. Enforcement of the aforesaid provisions is required
being in consonance with the proposition "sa/us reipublicae
suprema lex" (safety of the state is the supreme law).              E

     28. Thus, we should not entertain a petition calling for
issuing certain directions which are incapable of enforcemenU
execution. The National Human Rights Commission would be
well within its power if it decides to initiate suo-motu            F
proceedings against the alleged authors of hate speech.

     However, in view of the fact that the Law Commission has
undertaken the study as to whether the Election Commission
should be conferred the power to de-recognise a political party
disqualifying it or its members, if a party or its members commit   G
the offences referred to hereinabove, we request the Law
Commission to also examine the issues raised herein
thoroughly and also to consider, if it deems proper, defining the
expression "hate speech" and make recommendations to the
                                                                    H
    474       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A Parliament to strengthen the Election Commission to curb the
  menace of "hate speeches" irrespective of whenever made.

           With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed
    of.
B        A copy of the judgment be sent to the Hon'ble Chairman
    of Law Commission of India.

    D.G.                                  Writ Petition disposed of.