‘No Legislative Vacuum Exists’: Supreme Court Refuses Fresh Directions On Hate Speech

Last Updated:April 29, 2026, 12:48 IST

The bench held that the criminal law has adequate provisions to deal with such offences and left it to Parliament to decide if any changes are necessary.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to issue fresh guidelines or directions to curb hate speech across the country, while observing that the legislation on hate speech lies in the domain of the legislature and not the courts.

While hearing a batch of petitions seeking guidelines and protections against hate speech, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the criminal law has adequate provisions to deal with such offences and left it to Parliament to decide if any changes are necessary.

“The contention that the field of hate speech remains legislatively unoccupied is misconceived. The existing framework of substantive criminal law, including the provisions of the IPC and allied legislation, adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. The field is therefore not unoccupied," the bench said.

It further said that it was beyond the remit of the judiciary to create an offence, as it is a field exclusively within the domain of the legislature.

It also observed that the creation of criminal offences lies squarely within the legislative domain, and constitutional courts may interpret law but cannot compel legislation. The apex court further said that it is open for the Centre to consider whether any changes are warranted in the light of social changes to bring about suitable amendments.

It said that the grievance of the petitioners arises not from the absence of law but from the deficit from its enforcement.

Such concerns do not, however, justify law-making by the judiciary, said the bench, noting that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides for the registration of FIRs in cognisable offences and remedies before the Magistrate in case of default by the police.

“While we decline to issue directions sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that the issues relating to hate speeches and rumour mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and Constitutional order. It is open to the Union and the States to consider in their wisdom whether any further legislative measures are warranted in the light of evolving societal changes and challenges, or to bring suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission 267 report dated March 23, 2017," the bench stated.

Referring to remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and BNSS, the Court said the legal framework already ensures effective recourse in cases involving hate speech.

It noted that police are bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence, as settled in the Lalita Kumari judgment. In cases of non-registration, an aggrieved person can approach senior police officers under Section 154(3) CrPC or the corresponding provision under BNSS, and thereafter approach a magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.

The Supreme Court in 2018, had issued a slew of guidelines for the Centre and State governments to control and prevent the increasing number of hate crimes, including mob violence and lynching.

The guidelines included fast-tracked trials, victim compensation, deterrent punishment and disciplinary action against lax law-enforcing officials. The top court had said offences such as hate crimes, cow vigilantism and lynching incidents should be nipped in the bud.

It had said nodal officers were to be appointed to take note of hate crimes and register FIRs across the nation.

(With inputs from agencies)

News india ‘No Legislative Vacuum Exists’: Supreme Court Refuses Fresh Directions On Hate Speech

Read More