New Delhi: Refusing to quash multiple first information reports (FIRs) against News18 anchor Amish Devgan for his alleged defamatory remarks against Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti during a debate, the Supreme Court Monday observed that “persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority… owe a duty and have to be more responsible”.
The bench, comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, added that “…in a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality”.
In its 128-page judgment, the court differentiated between “free speech which includes the right to comment, favour or criticise government policies; and hate speech, (which includes) creating or spreading hatred against a targeted community or group”.
It said while the former, free speech, is primarily concerned with political, social, economic and policy matters, the latter is essentially intended to cause “humiliation and alienation of the targeted group”.
The object of criminalising hate speech, it said, is therefore to “protect dignity and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups regardless of caste, creed, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, linguistic preference etc”.
Hate speech, the court added “has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group”.
As for Devgan, the court referred to the transcript of the debate and opined that he was “an equal co-participant, rather than a mere host”.
It then said that it did not think it would be appropriate at this stage to quash the FIRs and stall the investigation. This, it said, was because the content of the show, along with its context, intent and harm/impact will have to be examined, and that this evaluation would be based on facts which can be ascertained by a police investigation.
The court, however, granted him interim protection from arrest and also transferred all the FIRs filed against him to Ajmer, where the first FIR was filed. It has also asked the Uttar Pradesh government to examine the threat perception to Devgan and his family members and take necessary steps.
Also read: There should be no construction work on Central Vista until judgment on pleas — SC to govt
Seven FIRs filed against Devgan
Seven FIRs were against Devgan in Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, for using a derogatory term for the Sufi saint in the news debate show called ‘Aar Paar’ on News18 on 15 June.
The FIRs had pointed out that while hosting the debate, Devgan had described P Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, as “aakrantak Chishti aya… aakrantak Chishti aya… lootera Chishti aya… uske baad dharam badle” (Terrorist Chishti came. Terrorist Chishti came. Robber Chishti came, thereafter the religion changed).
The first FIR, which was filed in Ajmer, was under Sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 298 (uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 66F (cyber terrorism) of the Information Technology Act 2000.
The other FIRs also included Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code.
Also read: Only 2 woman judges in SC and 82 of 1,079 judges in HCs — judiciary has a gender problem
Said the word by mistake: Devgan
Devgan had alleged that after the telecast, he received abuses and death threats over social media platforms, and had, in turn, registered an FIR against the threats in Noida on 20 June.
He then filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court on 23 June, demanding that the FIRs be quashed or be transferred and clubbed with the first FIR filed in Ajmer.
Among other things, Devgan had submitted that the words attributed to him were uttered “inadvertently and by mistake”. He also told the court that he had tweeted out an apology and the channel had also telecast an apology video soon after the debate.
The court, however, said that persons of influence need to be more responsible. “They are expected to know and perceive the meaning conveyed by the words spoken or written, including the possible meaning that is likely to be conveyed,” the court said.
It clarified that this does not mean that persons of influence like journalists do not enjoy the same freedom of speech and expression as other citizens, but added that it would look into the ‘who’ factor while looking into the harm, impact, intent or content of the alleged hate speech.
The court explained that the ‘who’ factor would include the speaker, as well as the audience to whom the statement is addressed.
It also said that the effect of any alleged hate speech “must be judged from the standard of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men and not by those who are weak and ones with vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view”.
Also read: SC decision to use A4 size paper will save 2,800 trees, 1 crore litre of water annually