There was no ambiguity in the Supreme Court’s approach to speeches inciting hatred. Responding to a petition asking for impartial inquiries into hate speeches against the minority community, the two-judge bench reportedly expressed outrage at the tragic condition to which religion had been reduced in the country. The remarks go to the heart of the divisiveness inflicted on India, although it is, or should be, ‘religion-neutral’, according to the court. The bench alluded to the culture of hatred and ordered the police to arrest those who incited hate without regard to their religion. Implicit in the order was the awareness of police bias — the role of political powers being invisible — and could, for many Indians, recall sequences of violence and arrests, as in the 2020 North-east Delhi riots, for example. Among the striking features of the Supreme Court ruling was the fact that the petition referred to the speech of a Bharatiya Janata Party leader, who allegedly asked the majority community not to buy anything from shops belonging to members of the largest minority community or to pay wages to workers from that group. There was also an alleged incitement to violence. The hate speeches emanating from religious meets in Uttarakhand and Delhi had called for extreme measures too. The governments of the two states together with that of Uttar Pradesh were asked by the court to report on the action they have taken regarding offenders. The Supreme Court ordered governments and the police to institute proceedings suo motu even without a complaint whenever there were speeches or actions inciting hatred between communities. Hesitation or failure to do this would result in contempt of court.

Although the inaction of — possibly encouragement from — the BJP high command has made such publicly articulated hatred the new normal, the Supreme Court’s order indicates that the constitutional values and principles of the secular democratic republic have not been defeated, neither has justice lost its perception. The court referred to the Constitution’s vision of a ‘fraternity’ and declared that various religious groups and castes could not live in harmony if such hatred is propagated. Such reminders are both shameful and alarming 75 years after Independence, but the Supreme Court’s clarity and firmness may yet instil hope for the containment of hatred. Repairing the social fabric is urgent.