The Apex Court conducted a thorough examination of the definition of hate speech in the Indian context as well as the body of legal precedent around this topic in liberal-democratic countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada in the case of amish devgan vs union of india. Subsequently, it distinguished between the substantive and punitive laws that define and criminalize hate speech within the Indian legal system, and the freedom of speech and expression as provided by article 19 1 a of the indian constitution. Nonetheless, the Court noted that it is impossible to define hate speech in a single way.
amish devgan vs union of india Case Facts
- The petitioner worked as a journalist and managing director for a number of TV18 broadcast limited-run news channels. On June 15, 2020, he moderated a debate program called “Aar Paar” about the Supreme Court challenge to “The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
- Following this broadcast, numerous First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against the petitioner in multiple states under sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) of the IPC and section 66-F of the information technology act 2000.
- The allegations were based on the petitioner’s description of Muslim pious saint Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chisti as a “terrorist” and a “lootera” (robber) during the debate show. In order to have the FIRs against him quashed, the petitioner filed a writ petition under article 32 of the indian constitution.
amish devgan vs union of india Issues
- Is there a possibility that the petitioner’s disrespectful and disparaging remarks would cause discord and disturbance in the community?
- Do the words diminish the pride and dignity of the country?
- Should the petition be carelessly rejected in accordance with article 32 of the indian constitution?
- Is it possible to sustain the several FIRs filed against the petitioner?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Although the petitioner acknowledged that he had said disparaging remarks against the Saint, he maintained that he had meant to speak of Allauddin Khilji rather than Chisti. And he has expressed regret for the same on other platforms and at various times.
- Filing multiple FIRs for the same occurrence is an abuse of the legal system and a violation of the petitioner’s basic rights to free speech, the press, and expression.
- As the statement was made inadvertently, there is no evidence of mens rea or deliberate intent to offend religious feelings. Because of this, false police reports (FIRs) for offenses are often dismissed or, in the event that they do, the case may be classified as a trifling or small injury under Section 95 of the IPC.
- Where there isn’t a “Cause of action,” a First Information Report is filed. As such, they cannot be sustained.
Respondent:
- Maharashtra, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan all disagreed with the appellant’s arguments.
- The petitioner had previously reported the same occurrence, according to the respondents, who contended that the petitioner had a tendency of offending.
- The fact that I used the word “Chisti” three times throughout the argument was neither a coincidence or an inadvertent error.
- Following the filing of formal complaints against him for his obscene behaviour and offensive remarks made during the broadcast, the petitioner taped an apology.
- The petitioner disregarded certain limitations and impositions found in article 19 of the indian constitution, which encouraged animosity and inflamed religious sentiments between Muslims and Hindus.
amish devgan vs union of india Judgment
- The Court noted that Mr. Devgan was being accused of using specific terms during a television debate, and that there was a legal and factual dispute that could not be resolved in the interim.
- As a result, the Court refrained from delving into the case’s merits and focused instead on determining whether Mr. Devgan qualified for detention immunity while the matter was being investigated.
- The Court observed that Amish had already complied with the summons and appeared before the investigating officer, as well as having assisted with the inquiry.
- The petitioner’s remarks were made during a public discourse on a topic of public interest, and the court noted that there was no proof that his views were intended to incite hatred or animosity. The Court found the Amish had a right, subject to restrictions, to be shielded from arrest while an investigation was ongoing.
- The Court ordered Mr. Devgan to fully comply with the investigating officer and to join the investigation as needed. The Court further ordered him to desist from saying or doing anything that may offend the religious feelings of any group of people.
- The Court granted Mr. Devgan’s petition and, subject to certain restrictions, shielded him from arrest while the inquiry was ongoing.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
