After independence, when India declared itself a secular nation, it faced Pakistan—a country created on the basis of Islam, carved out of India, and founded by the Muslim League on the premise that Hindus and Muslims were two separate cultures with no possibility of harmony. However, India’s freedom fighters not only opposed the Two-Nation Theory propounded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but also sought to demonstrate that India is a land of diverse beliefs and traditions where, despite differences in thought over centuries, people have lived together in harmony.
Despite people of all faiths participating together in the national freedom movement, the country was partitioned in 1947 on religious grounds. Nevertheless, India recognized itself as a secular nation and ensured that Muslim citizens living in the country would enjoy the same equal rights as Hindu citizens. The Constitution firmly established these provisions and ensured comprehensive measures to promote fraternity among all communities.
Spreading hatred in society on the basis of religion, caste, region, birth, or gender was categorized as a criminal offense and considered harmful to national unity and integrity. Acts that incite enmity or hatred between communities have been treated with utmost seriousness. The reason is clear: when hatred spreads in society, the nation weakens, and this adversely affects the overall development process. It is equally essential that governments strive to build a strong nation, which is only possible when there is social harmony and brotherhood.
India did not declare any religion as the state religion, nor did it make religion the basis of citizenship. Instead, it established that any person residing in any part of India, regardless of the faith they follow, is a respected citizen of the country. This constitutional provision paved the way for empowering individuals of every religion in independent India. That is why, nearly 78 years after independence, we see people from every community progressing in all spheres of life.
However, in recent years, there has been a surge in hate speech and divisive statements within society. In 2023, the Supreme Court took cognizance of this issue and directed that the police in every state should take suo motu action against such statements and initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the offenders. We also observe that whenever elections approach in any state, petitions begin to flood the Supreme Court, and various political parties attempt to settle scores through judicial intervention.
Recently, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the opponents of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma concerning a video and certain statements attributed to him. The Supreme Court judges declined to hear the petition, stating that the matter should first be taken to the Assam High Court, as High Courts also possess wide and sufficient powers to adjudicate such cases.
The fundamental question is whether bringing every state-level issue directly to the Supreme Court undermines the established judicial process designed to make justice more accessible. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Surya Kant remarked, while hearing the petition filed by two Communist parties and others against Mr. Sarma, that whenever elections approach, attempts are made to turn the Supreme Court into a political battleground. The judges questioned whether bypassing High Courts and approaching the Supreme Court directly diminishes the moral authority of High Courts.
The judges emphasized that High Courts are also constitutional courts and, in many matters, possess even broader powers. Therefore, such a situation cannot be tolerated. Certainly, any citizen has the right under Article 32 of the Constitution to approach the Supreme Court directly for the protection of fundamental rights. However, this does not mean that politically motivated issues aimed at causing political gain or loss should be brought directly before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Sarma holds a constitutional position as the Chief Minister of Assam. Hence, it would have been more appropriate to first bring the hate speech matter before the High Court. Yet, in recent times, petitions on nearly every issue are being filed directly in the Supreme Court. Such petitions often receive substantial media coverage, which is also evaluated in terms of political gain or loss.
When our judicial system provides that High Courts can adjudicate constitutional matters, why should the burden on the Supreme Court be increased—especially when it has only 33 judges? Justice Surya Kant has also commented on this issue. Therefore, we should adopt a course that ensures timely justice while upholding constitutional propriety. Regarding hate speech, the Supreme Court has also stated that there is a need for clear rules and guidelines in this regard, which all states and politicians must follow.
