Former Supreme Court judge accuses the ruling party of endorsing hate speech
Justice Rohinton Nariman was speaking at the inaugural function of DM Harish School of Law in Mumbai
Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman recently expressed concern over the rising instances of hate speech and calls for genocide against minorities in the country. He lamented that silence and endorsement of leaders of the ruling party on the increasing incidents of communal bigotry were unfortunate.
Justice Nariman was giving a keynote address on the ‘Constitutional Underpinnings of the Rule of Law’ at the inauguration of the D M Harish School of Law, Mumbai.
He said that it was unfortunate that students, youngsters and stand-up comedians were being booked under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criticizing the government. But on the other hand, there was reluctance on the part of the authorities to book persons giving hate speech.
Excerpts from the speech:
Silence on hate speech
Concerned over the silence on hate speeches delivered in various parts of the country, he said, “We heard the other day from the head of the party a juxtaposition of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, known for being a bigot, as against Shivaji who was known to be a secular leader.”
But in keeping with tenets of brotherhood envisaged by the Constitution, I would have chosen Mughal emperors like Babar or Akbar instead of Aurangzeb, Justice Nariman pointed.
He quoted from a letter that Babar wrote to his son Humayun advising him to dispense justice according to the tenets of each community and refrain from the sacrifice of the cow.
On sedition law
The former judge called for striking down Section 124A of IPC, which criminalizes sedition. “It is time to do away with the sedition laws and allow free speech so long as it does not exhort somebody to violence and end up as being hate speech,” he stated.
Expressing that the sedition law was a creation of colonial rulers and had no place in the Indian Constitution, he said that it was heartening that the Vice President of the country had remarked that hate speech was unconstitutional.
Sabarimala review petition
Justice Nariman disapproved of the steps taken by the Supreme Court with regard to the Sabarimala case. Taking exception to the judgment rendered by a five-judge constitution bench of which he was a part, he said it had not been implemented.
He rued that despite five judges of the Supreme Court laying down the rules that women between the age group of 10 to15 could enter the temple, no woman was allowed.
The retired judge was also critical of the manner in which the Supreme Court had handled the issue when the review petition came up. The matter eventually ended up before a nine-judge bench, which was not a norm in review petitions. “Therefore, the Sabarimala issue has gone in limbo,” he said.
Eternal vigilance is necessary, not only for liberty, but also for liberty enforced by the courts, which is the rule of the law of the country, Justice Nariman stated.