SC refuses to ban ‘hate speeches’ |
| OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT |
New Delhi, March 3: The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking a ban on “hate speeches” in the run-up to the general election, saying all shades of public opinion should come out unrestricted.
The court said that since India is a mature democracy, it would be appropriate if the opinion of all its 128 crore people was left unrestricted.
“What type of mandamus (directive) can we issue? We are a mature democracy. We are now a country of 128 crore people. How can we impose any restrictions?” the bench of Justices R.M. Lodha and Dipak Misra observed.
“Let all shades of opinion come. Let the opinion of 128 crore come out in the open. Let the people decide it.”
The court passed the observation while dismissing the PIL filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who sought a ban on all “hate speeches” saying political leaders were spewing inflammatory talk with impunity.
He sought a direction to the Election Commission to debar such candidates from contesting.
Sharma cited the instance of certain allegations of corruption against Rahul Gandhi that he claimed were false.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Lodha asked: “Article 32 is intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. It is not meant for destroying it. (Do) you want us to destroy it?”
Under Article 32, any person can move the apex court to enforce his or her fundamental rights.
Special privileges
The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a PIL seeking to end the special privileges granted to Dalits and tribals.
Manjit Singh Sachdeva had claimed these communities had made considerable progress in the past five decades, furnishing what he said were “interesting statistics” in support of his contention that they no longer needed reservation benefits.
“We appreciate the statement made by you but we cannot pass any directions,” the bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.
“It is for the government and the legislature to take a decision. If they want they can amend the Constitution, but we cannot pass any directions on the basis of one single statistics furnished by you.”
|
SC refuses to restrain politicians from making hate speeches
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking its direction to restrain politicians from indulging in "provocative and hate speeches", saying that it cannot curtail people's fundamental right to free speech.
"We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious rights guaranteed by Constitution," a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding "we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide."
The court said that it is a matter of perception and a statement objectionable to a person might not be normal to other person.
"We are 128 million people and there would be 128 million views. One is free not accept the view of others," the bench said.
The petitioner, advocate ML Sharma, contended that various politicians indulge in hate speech for securing political mileage in their favour and they must be restrained from doing so.
"We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious rights guaranteed by Constitution," a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding "we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide."
The court said that it is a matter of perception and a statement objectionable to a person might not be normal to other person.
The petitioner, advocate ML Sharma, contended that various politicians indulge in hate speech for securing political mileage in their favour and they must be restrained from doing so.
నేతల విద్వేష ప్రసంగాలను అడ్డుకోలేం:సుప్రీం
Published at: 04-03-2014 06:03 AM
న్యూఢిల్లీ : రాజకీయనాయకులు విద్వేష ప్రసంగాలు చేయకుండా అడ్డుకోవడానికి కలుగజేసుకోలేమని సుప్రీంకోర్టు సోమవారం స్పష్టం చేసింది. విద్వేషపూరిత ప్రసంగాలు, అసాధ్యమైన హామీలతో ఓటర్లను ప్రభావితం చేయకుండా రాజకీయనాయకులను అడ్డుకునేలా ఎన్నికల సంఘాన్ని ఆదేశించాలని కోరుతూ దాఖలైన ప్రజాప్రయోజన వ్యాజ్యంపై సుప్రీం పైవిధంగా స్పందించింది. అలా ఆదేశిస్తే వాక్ స్వాతంత్య్రానికి విఘాతం కలిగే అవకాశముందని పేర్కొంది. 'అన్ని రకాల అభిప్రాయాలు ప్రజల ముందుకు రానివ్వండి. వారినే నిర్ణయించుకోనివ్వండి' అని వ్యాఖ్యానించింది.
రిజర్వేషన్లు విధానంపై పిల్ కొట్టివేత
కులం, మతం ఆధారంగా రిజర్వేషన్ల అమలును నిలిపేయాలని, ఆర్థిక పరిస్థితుల ఆధారంగానే వాటిని అమలు చేసేలా ప్రభుత్వాన్ని ఆదేశించాలని దాఖలైన ప్రజా ప్రయోజన వ్యాజ్యాన్ని సుప్రీంకోర్టు సోమవారం తోసిపుచ్చింది. ఈ విధానంలో తాము నేరుగా జోక్యం చేసుకోలేమని చీఫ్ జస్టిస్ పి. సదాశివం, జస్టిస్ రంజన్ గొగోయ్‌లతో కూడిన ధర్మాసనం పేర్కొంది.
కులం, మతం ఆధారంగా రిజర్వేషన్ల అమలును నిలిపేయాలని, ఆర్థిక పరిస్థితుల ఆధారంగానే వాటిని అమలు చేసేలా ప్రభుత్వాన్ని ఆదేశించాలని దాఖలైన ప్రజా ప్రయోజన వ్యాజ్యాన్ని సుప్రీంకోర్టు సోమవారం తోసిపుచ్చింది. ఈ విధానంలో తాము నేరుగా జోక్యం చేసుకోలేమని చీఫ్ జస్టిస్ పి. సదాశివం, జస్టిస్ రంజన్ గొగోయ్‌లతో కూడిన ధర్మాసనం పేర్కొంది.
- See more at: http://www.andhrajyothy.com/node/71698#sthash.wMnur2bx.dpuf
By Tom Head
Ads: Criminal Court Cases New iPAD Cases Asbestos Cases Industrial Cases Personal Injury Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued six major landmark rulings on hate speech law since 1949.
Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)
Fr. Arthur Terminiello did for the Archdiocese of Chicago what mononucleosis did for kissing booths. A raging antisemite and right-wing lunatic, he gave a speech in Chicago that prompted protestors outdoors to riot. The city of Chicago arrested him under a law banning riotous speech, but the Supreme Court overturned his conviction.
[F]reedom of speech...," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the 5-4 majority, is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."
Ads
Present Your Case - Free
www.presentyourcase.com
Talk to Lawyers in Your Area Today Fast, Free & Confidential Service
Public Arrest Records
instantcheckmate.com
1) Enter a Name & Search for Free. 2) View Background Check Instantly.
Personal Injury Cases
www.totalinjury.com
How Much Is Your Personal Injury Case Worth? Free Case Evaluation.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
No organization has been more aggressively or justifiably pursued on grounds of hate speech than the Ku Klux Klan. But the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned in a ruling that has protected radicals of all political persuasions ever since. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice William Brennan argued that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
When the National Socialist Party of America was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers turned to the small, ethnically Jewish town of Skokie—where 1/6th of the Jewish population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march, but their efforts were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a terse ruling. After the ruling, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad.
Virginia v. Black (2003)
11 years after the St. Paul case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of cross-burning after three people were arrested separately for violating a Virginia ban. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Westboro Baptist Church has made a career out of being reprehensible. The organization, which came to national prominence by gleefully picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, later moved on to celebrating the 9/11 attacks and picketing military funerals. The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006, sued Westboro—and its leader, Fred Phelps—for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro's right to picket. While acknowledging that Westboro's "contribution to public discourse may be negligible," Chief Justice John Roberts's ruling rested in existing U.S. hate speech precedent: "Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were."
No comments:
Post a Comment