Justice Nageswar Rao Highlighted the importance of unity in diversity, emphasizing that the citizens belief in the same is the reason why India is doing well as a democracy.
Utterances that drive a wedge between castes and communities can amount to hate speech and proliferation of which on social media needs to be taken note of stated the Supreme Court Judge Justice L Nageswara Rao on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court Judge said that for speech to be termed as hate speech it need not necessarily lead to violence.
It was said that only speeches leading to violence amount to hate speech. A speech can be hate speech if it is driving a wedge between groups, castes, community. In this era of social media, hate speech is something which has to be taken note of," he said.
Justice Rao said that there was a proposal to amend the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to tackle the issue, but the same has not materialized yet.
"In this country, truth will only come out through discussion and unless there is a public debate and discussion, there cannot be a democracy worth its name," he added.
Pertinently, Justice Rao also highlighted the importance of unity in diversity, emphasizing that the citizens' belief in the same is the reason why India is doing well as a democracy.
"We have 29 states, 121 languages and 217 mother tongues, hundreds of castes, different religions and largest democracy and in spite of all this, the country is doing so well is because we believe in unity in diversity," he said.
Justice Rao was speaking at the Soli J Sorabjee First Excellence Award & Scholarship and Inaugural Memorial Lecture on the theme The Role of the Supreme Court of India in Augmenting the Scope of Fundamental Rights.
He began his speech by expressing his admiration for the Late Soli Sorabjee and told the audience that he was groomed, nurtured and encouraged by the former Attorney General.
"He was a great leader. He was a champion of fundamental rights; his contribution to the march of law was immeasurable. He was interested in protecting fundamental rights, not only through arguing in courts, but he used to write regularly," Justice Rao said.
The judge went on to explain that fundamental rights were not invented by the Constitution, but were only guaranteed by it. However, he clarified that these remained subject to reasonable restrictions.
While discussing Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, Justice Rao shed light on the principle of substantive equality that has been taken into account by the Supreme Court in light of discrimination and inequality in access to resources.
"It is incumbent upon the government to treat some classes of people as equal who don't have equal access to resources, and this is how reservation in educational institutions and public appointment comes into the picture so that principle of equality is in their favour," he said.
The judge went on to discuss Article 19, which protects the freedom of speech and expression, as well as other freedoms. He discussed the interplay of the freedom of expression and the rapid advent of technology and social media.
He also spoke about the Shreya Singhal case, in which Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was struck down for being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21.
"While deciding the case, three principles were laid down: discussion, advocacy and incitement," he pointed out.
He explained the test laid down that when something curtailed discussion and advocacy, it could not be a ground to curtail free speech, but only when it was an incitement, it could be a violation of free speech.
Justice Rao also touched upon the aspect of internet shutdowns, including those in Kashmir.
Such questions will keep falling before courts in myriad forms and wherever there is a challenge, the Supreme Court will enhance the scope of speech," he said.
Finally, Justice Rao discussed Article 21 of the Constitution, opining that by giving content to this right, the Supreme Court had introduced procedural substantiveness.
"The Supreme Court found that there is a scope, that there is a need to provide flesh to the bones which is existing in the form of Article 21. It has been true to the expression sentinel qui vive."
.webp)
