Discussing sensitive topics on religion, caste, creed, and taking extreme views, can’t be considered as ‘hate speech’ by itself (SC-2020)

[advtanmoy]

Sections 153A and 505(2) of the Penal Code-the law of ‘hate speech’ recognises that all speakers are entitled to ‘good faith’ and ‘(no)-legitimate purpose’ protection. ‘Good faith’ means that the conduct should display fidelity as well as a conscientious approach in honouring the values that tend to minimise insult, humiliation or intimidation. The latter being objective, whereas the former is subjective. The important requirement of ‘good faith’ is that the person must exercise prudence, caution and diligence. It requires due care to avoid or minimise consequences.

[See the full post at: Discussing sensitive topics on religion, caste, creed, and taking extreme views, can’t be considered as ‘hate speech’ by itself (SC-2020)]

[advtanmoy]

The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation

Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 530 has discouraged the tendency of entertainment of PIL’s in regard to lis which can be redressed by remedy available under the statute. Relevant para 49 of the said decision is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:

“49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the Court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation.

[Author]

Posts