Taking a serious note of hate speeches, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the moment politics is separated from religion and politicians stop using religion in politics, such speeches will stop, reported news agency PTI.
The top court termed hate speeches as a “vicious cycle” and said it was being created only by fringe elements and urged people to restrain themselves
Commenting, a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagaratna also referred to the speeches of former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and said that people used to gather from far-flung areas and corners to listen to such leaders. .
“The big problem arises when politicians are mixing politics with religion. The moment politics and religion are separated, it will end. When politicians stop using religion, it will all stop We have also said in our recent judgment that it is dangerous to mix politics with religion.” For democracy,” Justice Joseph said, as reported by PTI.
The court further urged the people of India to take a pledge not to defame other citizens or communities.
“Every day fringe elements are making speeches to defame others, including on TV and in public forums,” the bench said while hearing a contempt plea against various state officials.
A heated exchange took place between the court and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta after Mehta pointed to a derogatory speech made by a person in Kerala against a particular community and questioned whether petitioner Shaheen Abdullah had selectively recorded incidents of hate speech in the country. pointedly pointed out.
Pointing to a statement made by a DMK party leader, Mehta questioned why the counsel for the petitioner did not make him and those states parties to the contempt petition.
Reacting to those speeches, the court said, “Every action has an equal reaction” and asserted, “We are following the Constitution and the orders in each case are the building blocks of the rule of law. We will file contempt petitions.” But hearing because the states are not taking action.” This is because the state has become impotent, powerless and does not act in time. Why should we have a state if it is silent?”
“How much contempt after contempt can we have against these people. That’s why I asked the other day how the top court will deal with it. Why do you (petitioner) start with the top court? Shouldn’t there be some restraint?” Otherwise we will not be able to become the India we wish for. Why can’t the citizens of this country take a pledge not to abuse others and what kind of pleasure we are getting by giving this speech.’
