While rejecting BJP leader PC George’s anticipatory bail plea in a case involving remarks against the Muslim community, the Kerala High Court raised concerns over the increasing instances of statements fuelled by caste and religious divisions.
"Nowadays, there is a tendency to make statements based on religion, caste etc. These are against the basic structure of our Constitution. These tendencies should be nipped in the bud," Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed in the bail order.
The Court also highlighted the inadequacy of existing penal provisions in addressing hate speech offenses, emphasizing that offenders can often evade imprisonment by merely paying a fine. The relevant provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—Section 196(1)(a), which pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on religious and other grounds, and Section 299, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious sentiments by insulting a religion or its beliefs—fail to mandate imprisonment. Under both these provisions, the prescribed punishment includes imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both, leaving it to the Court’s discretion to impose only a monetary penalty instead of a jail term.
The Court further noted a significant gap in the legal framework, pointing out that even repeat offenders of hate speech laws do not face enhanced punishment, thereby reducing the deterrent effect of these provisions. It stressed that the absence of stricter penalties for second-time offenders allows individuals to repeatedly engage in divisive and inflammatory rhetoric without facing severe consequences. Recognizing the broader implications of this issue on social harmony and public order, the Court underscored the urgent need for legislative intervention. It urged the Parliament and the Law Commission to take this matter into serious consideration and explore necessary amendments to strengthen the legal framework governing hate speech offenses.
"For the offences under Sections 196(1) (a) and 299 of the BNS, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three years or fine or with both. Even for a second offender, there is no higher punishment...This is a serious matter to be looked into by the Law Commission and the Parliament. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India," the Court observed.
The petitioner's lawyer argued that the remarks were a mere "slip of the tongue," made in response to provocation from a co-panellist. However, addressing this claim, the Court asserted that a politician of the petitioner's stature, if so easily provoked, is unfit to continue as a political leader.
"I am forced to say that, a politician like the petitioner, who has about 30 years of experience as an MLA can be provoked easily like this, he does not deserve to continue as a political leader." The Court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that he has apologised through his Facebook page.
The Court said, “the petitioner is a Senior politician and was an MLA for 30 years representing a Constituency. The people will closely watch his speech, statements and even behaviour. The politicians should be a role model to the society. After making abusive statements which may result in communal disharmony, the apology given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner ought to have thought that he was participating in a live coverage discussion on a channel. Lakhs and Lakhs of people are watching the television.”
The Court further emphasized that bail cannot be granted solely on the grounds that custodial interrogation is not required. It clarified that while deciding on bail, the Court must take into account the accused's past conduct and the gravity of the allegations.
info@adhwaitha.com
