The Tehseen Poonawala judgment saw the apex court issue a series of guidelines for states and the police to prevent, control and deter mob violence and lynching. | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 25, 2025) said it was not inclined to legislate or monitor every incident of hate speech across the country.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the police station and the state high courts were in place and competent to deal with them.
The oral observations from the Bench came nearly seven years after the Supreme Court condemned hate crimes in 2018. The court declared it a “sacred duty” of the state to protect the dignity and lives of citizens from hate crimes.
The Tehseen Poonawala judgment saw the apex court issue a series of guidelines for states and the police to prevent, control and deter mob violence and lynching.
Four years later, in October 2022, the Supreme Court witnessed the unabated fury of hate crimes and condemned the “tragic” level to which we have “reduced religion” in the 21st century. It said that “a climate of hatred prevails in the country”.
The court ordered the police and authorities to suo motu register cases against hate speech perpetrators without waiting for anyone to file formal complaints.
On Tuesday (November 25, 2025), the Nath and Mehta court was hearing a plea filed by journalist Qurban Ali and others citing instances of systematic ostracism of the Muslim community in various states.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, their counsel, also referred to an affidavit that a minister in Assam had shared a post after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s election victory in Bihar saying “Bihar approves Gobi farming”. The counsel argued that it was related 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 asked why public interest suits against hate speech were filed only within one faith. He said that hate speech is not limited to insulting only one particular faith.
Mr Pasha said the state certainly did not need any help from the appellants to know hate crimes were happening.
“I don’t have to be the one to inform the state that hate speech is happening and that action needs to be taken. That is the duty of the state. If the state had been zealous, I wouldn’t have had to trouble your lordship in the Supreme Court,” replied Mr Pasha.
Published – 25 Nov 2025 21:38 IST
