In News: The Supreme Court the Union Home Ministry to file a report within three weeks on whether states have complied with the court’s earlier verdicts on curbing hate speech.
- The court was referring to earlier rulings in which, it said, it had passed “preventive, corrective and remedial” measures to deal with such situations.
- In a 2018 ruling, Tehseen Poonawala v Union of India, the Supreme Court had condemned the “sweeping phenomenon” of lynching and mob violence in the country.
- In Shakti Vahini v Union of India verdict in 2018, in which petitioners sought the court’s intervention in curbing honour killing, the top court ruled that any attempt by khap panchayats, or any other assembly, to scuttle or prevent two consenting adults from marrying is absolutely ‘illegal’.
Tehseen S. Poonawalla case
- In July 2018 judgment in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla case, the SC gave the government full freedom to stop/curb dissemination of “irresponsible and explosive messages on various social media platforms, which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.”
Shakti Vahini v Union of India verdict in 2018
- The judgment came on a petition filed by NGO Shakti Vahini to curb honour crimes.
- The court held that the consent of the family, community or clan is not necessary for marriage.
- This is to safeguard young couples under threat for marrying outside their caste or religion.
- The Court also issued a set of guidelines for the authorities, to stop interference by khap panchayats.
Hate Speech (Reasons, legal provisions and way forward)
Source: Indian Express
For a dedicated peer group, Motivation & Quick updates, Join our official telegram channel – https://t.me/IASbabaOfficialAccount
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE to watch Explainer Videos, Strategy Sessions, Toppers Talks & many more…