Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Inflammatory Speeches by Politicians

The Supreme Court declined a PIL seeking action against politicians' inflammatory speeches, citing a distinction between hate speech and wrong assertions. The petition called for guidelines to curb divisive rhetoric. The court suggested exploring alternative legal routes for grievances.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that called for urgent intervention against inflammatory speeches by public figures, claiming they threaten national unity and security. The court acknowledged the differentiation between hate speech and incorrect assertions.

A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar, addressed the 'Hindu Sena Samiti' petition, stating their reluctance to proceed under Article 32. The court suggested alternative legal remedies for grievances, instead of continuing with the current writ petition.

The petition had urged the creation of regulations to prevent provocative rhetoric and proposed penalties for those making potentially destabilizing remarks. It cited recent comments by Sajjan Singh Verma and Rakesh Tikait as examples of speech that could incite public disorder, criticizing inconsistent government enforcement of speech-related laws.

(With inputs from agencies.)