New Delhi, India – July 14, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India on Monday urged both the states and the Central government to devise mechanisms for regulating hate speech, but stressed that such measures must not infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The observation came during a hearing on a plea filed by Wajahat Khan, who was the original complainant against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli.
A bench comprising Justice B.V.
Nagrathna and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan expressed concern over the pervasive spread of hate speech, often disguised as “freedom of expression.” The judges emphasized the importance of educating the public about the true value and limits of free speech, indicating that an informed citizenry would naturally prefer not to have the state intervene heavily in its regulation.
The Context: Khan and Panoli Cases
The case before the Supreme Court involves Wajahat Khan, who initially filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making inflammatory communal remarks. Panoli was subsequently arrested and later granted bail by the Calcutta High Court.
However, the situation took a turn when Khan himself faced multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) across several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Haryana, and Delhi, for his own social media posts. These FIRs accused him of inciting religious sentiments and posting hate-mongering material. The Supreme Court had previously issued a stay on coercive action against Khan in cases outside West Bengal, where he is currently in police custody for two FIRs.
During earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had critically observed Khan’s tweets, with Justice Vishwanathan remarking that such “hate tweets” could not be considered within the ambit of freedom of speech and expression. The court had also quoted a Tamil proverb, “Wounds inflicted by fire may heal, but not the wounds inflicted by tongue,” to highlight the lasting damage caused by verbal hate.
Balancing Act: Freedom vs. Responsibility
The Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement reiterates a delicate balance that Indian law consistently seeks to achieve between the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the “reasonable restrictions” that can be imposed under Article 19(2) to maintain public order, decency, morality, and prevent incitement to an offense.
While India does not have a single, comprehensive legal framework specifically defining and addressing hate speech, various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other laws are used to penalize such acts. These include:
- Section 153A: Penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony.
- Section 295A: Deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Section 505: Punishes statements conducing to public mischief, especially those creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes.
The Supreme Court has previously emphasized the need for police to be proactive in dealing with hate speech, even taking suo motu action without waiting for a formal complaint, irrespective of the religion of the alleged offender. Today’s directive further underscores the judiciary’s consistent stance against the misuse of freedom of expression for disseminating hate.
The court’s emphasis on public awareness regarding the responsible exercise of free speech indicates a desire for societal self-regulation rather than solely relying on state-imposed restrictions, highlighting the complex challenge of addressing hate speech in a democratic society.
