Where Is Our Nation Going? The Supreme Court Worries About Hate Speech in the Media and Question the Center's "Mute Witness" Status.

 According to the Court, the anchor's position is crucial in limiting hate speech during channel debates.

New Delhi : The Supreme Court posed the question "Where is our nation headed" orally on Wednesday in response to grave worries over the unchecked spread of hate speech in the media. The Court emphasised the importance of having a strict regulatory framework against hate speech and questioned the Indian government as to "why it is standing as a mute witness while all this is happening."

               KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy were sitting on a bench hearing a group of eleven writ petitions that asked for guidelines on how to control hate speech. Among the petitions were complaints about the "UPSC Jihad" programme on Sudarshan News TV, statements made at Dharam Sansad meetings, and requests for restrictions on social media posts that spread COVID pandemic information.

Center was urged to express its position on the Law Commission's proposals clearly. 

             When the hearing began, Justice Joseph questioned, "What are the legal laws that relate to hate speech in India?" One of the petitioners, attorney Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, informed the court that the Election Commission had responded and requested that changes integrating a particular clause be made. He also told the court that there is no legal definition of hate speech or rumor-mongering.

               Justice Joseph also questioned the Indian government about its reply and why it was being a silent witness. He recommended that the government step forward to establish a system that will be followed by everyone. The Government of India was ordered by the court to submit a response. The Court further ordered the Government to make clear whether it intended to implement the Law Commission of India's suggestions for changes to the law to address hate crimes.

           Only 14 states out of the 29 states have responded, according to the Center. The States were permitted to submit separate answers by the Court. Sanjay Hegde, a senior attorney, was also instructed to compile the States' responses.

Hate speech is unacceptable because it poisons society as a whole.

       "Political parties will come and go, but the nation will endure the institution, including the press, it is key part, and it is extremely crucial that we have true freedom there," Justice Joseph said orally. "Without a completely independent press, no country can advance. "Hate speech utterly taints society's core fibre... It cannot be allowed "Justice Joseph continued.

Need for a regulating mechanism

                Justice Joseph continued, emphasising the necessity for a regulatory framework: "The issue is that there isn't a regulatory framework for TV. I think that all English channels received significant fines. This place doesn't use that system. Law requires sanctions, and sanctions must be carried out. They are not being dealt with firmly, which is the issue. Sanctions will be implemented if this happens... Any anchor will have his or her own opinions, and no anchor will differ from the stance the channel is adopting because they are all connected and you cannot disclose from them. However, the problem arises when you call people with different opinions but forbid them from expressing themselves. When you do that, you spread hatred and your TRP rises, which motivates you. When no one looks into this and takes action, it is really sad.

                      The cases have been listed by the bench for resolution on November 23.