- Advertisment -

Hate speech: Government must show courage to act – Will the government have the courage to act on hate speech?ATN News

- Advertisment -

When a land loses its fertility either due to its nature or due to external causes, external intervention becomes inevitable. These interventions come in the form of organic or chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and if these still do not meet the requirement, genetically modified plants are planted in the soil for food ‘security’. Should be installed. Similar ‘genetic changes’ are needed in the TV news media in India at the moment as the land of journalism has lost its fertility in the last eight years.

Self-regulation has become a myth in the media. The Supreme Court’s remarks three days ago and its tough attitude towards the TV media indicate that the court is now considering using ‘pesticides’ without delay. Is. A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Harshikesh Roy was hearing 11 collective writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the court to curb hate speech by the petitioners.

Latest news

During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the role of the anchor, saying, “The role of the anchor is very important. Hate speech is either on mainstream television or on social media… As far as mainstream television is concerned, As far as channels are concerned. The question is….. the role of the anchor is very important there because as soon as you see someone giving hate speech, it is the duty of the anchor to… not allow that person to say anything more. .

How correct the observation of the Supreme Court regarding the role of an anchor can be judged from the Nupur Sharma case. In the case of BJP leader Nupur Sharma, it was observed that if the anchor of the program wanted to stop or mute the program in which he had made comments about the Prophet of Islam, he did not do so. As a result, a large area of ​​the country remained insecure for months. The remarks that came to India from the Arab countries were derogatory. This remark which destroyed the foreign relations and the internal peace and order of the country could have been stopped but it was not stopped. Despite this, the government did not take any action against the TV channel.

One such case came to light when the owner of Sudarshan News, Suresh Chavanke, was going to run the ‘UPSC Jihad’ program in his program ‘Bandas Bol’. Suresh, who had been promoting the program for several days, was spreading hatred against civil service officers elected from a particular religion. The government ignored this false propaganda under the nose of the central government, but the strict stand of the Supreme Court banned the telecast of the programme. But the court could not stop Suresh Chavanke’s intention of hate speech. Perhaps someone was standing with him ‘from above’, which is why, when his program was banned, he said at a program organized by Hindu Yuva Vahni in Delhi, ‘I am proud to be Suresh Chauhan, who The show was banned by the Supreme Court. . He didn’t stop there, he added, “Truth cannot be suppressed by force or court. I have a list of 100 people who are IAS, IPS… but they work for Islam. Not for the country.”


UPSC may have some flaws, they can be discussed and objected to but an exam through which the officers who run the country are selected for the country, on the basis of religion. But there is no conspiracy, it is not right to believe it. That it is a haunted place. UPSC is an important pillar of the federal structure of the country, hence the Government of India should have ‘acted’ before the court as this Sudarshan News program was a way of playing with the integrity of the country.

But the Delhi Police did not take any action against people who tried to burn the country and spread hatred. The Delhi Police, led by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, acted in a big way when it confidently submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court that “nothing was said” in the Delhi program of the Hindu Yuva Vahini. Justifying the hate speech, the Delhi Police said “we should show tolerance towards the views of others”. The one-sided attitude of the police and administration towards hate speech continues to fuel this crime.

The problem of hate speech is not just a one-sided problem of TV news anchors. But TV news continues to broadcast it without knowing how any headline or debate will affect the unity of the society. The speed and impact of TV media broadcasting any news or rumor has become unpredictable today. But the lack of responsibility for this effect is making unbridled TV media dangerous. The opium effect of TRP can be seen in the prime time programs of news channels. Since 2014, the influence of this drug has been increasing day by day, resulting in increasing hate speech crimes in the society since 2014. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, where 323 cases of hate speech were registered in 2014, the number increased by nearly 600 percent to 1,804 in 2020. These figures point to the ‘new direction’ of ‘new India’, which must be stopped at any cost.

The 267th Report of the Law Commission of India defines hate speech as spreading and inciting hatred against a group of persons defined as race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and religious belief. Hatred and incitement are done for political gain and to inflame communal tension. All the bright and clean looking TV anchors have become tools of hate politics. A tool designed and developed to carefully spread information and disinformation. Not surprisingly, the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013 that started with a fake video had their roots in a media network that was spreading the same fake news. The media is dominated by people who want to measure the hard-earned freedom and integrity of this country by TRP alone.

The justification for the Supreme Court’s concern is that “hate speech only poisons the fabric … it cannot be allowed.” And it is also true that “Political parties will come and go but this country will remain with all the institutions including the press. No country can move forward without a completely free press, but the government has to make such a mechanism that everyone agrees.” …”

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohanton Fali Nariman has expressed concern over the growing hate speech in the country in recent times. In a webinar, he said that “unfortunately, people in the highest positions of the ruling party are not only silent on the hate speech, but also supporting it.” He added that there are people who have “actually called for the massacre of entire communities”, yet “the authorities don’t seem prepared to prosecute them.”


What is the definition of hate speech? Should it be defined first? All these ideas are a bogus legal way to ask for permission to play with India’s unity for a few more days. Just as profanity does not need to be defined, hate speech does not need to be defined. Everyone in society who is not themselves involved in hate speech knows very well what hate speech is!

The currently available framework is not sufficient for hate speech, confirms both the major committees on hate speech, the TK Viswanathan Committee and the Beezbaroh Committee. Both these committees have recommended adding some more sections in the Indian Penal Code to make the punishment for hate speech more severe. Justice Rohanton Nariman himself believes that there is a need to amend the penal provisions against hate speech.

During the Supreme Court debate on hate speech, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said, “This industry (media) is unregulated and has no restrictions.” But there is no effect. The media engaged in spreading hatred in the name of news is ready to hold the country hostage in the name of freedom of press and freedom of thought.


Media is not the name of submission of ideas and opinions to the government.

In 1957, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Ramji Lal Modi case upheld the validity of Section 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. This section provides punishment for malicious acts done intentionally to hurt the religious sentiments of any section. In validating the section, the Court reasoned that Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression in keeping with public order.

If this article of the constitution is still in force today, as it is, pseudo-gurus like Kalicharan and Narasimananda, and many other TV journalists, anchors, editors and their bosses including Suresh Chavanke, would have visited Awami Jail from time to time. . ! Recognizing that the country is not the prerogative of any particular party. The government should rise above electoral gains and legal complications and prioritize the country. So that by creating an ‘eco-system’ of a particular religion, political gain-seeker, leaving the parties here and there, electorally brave leaders can be prevented from playing with the unity of the country.

The Ultimate Managed Hosting Platform
- Advertisment -

Most Popular