Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Sections 153A, 153B, 505, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Sections 153A, 153B, 505, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Shaheen Abdulla, filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022 before the Supreme Court of India alleging a “growing climate of hate” against the Muslim community in India. The petition chronicles several recent instances of hate speech and asserts governmental inaction despite the availability of penal provisions such as Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 21 October 2022, the matter was listed for admission before a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy. After hearing senior counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal for the petitioner, the Court issued notice and passed interim directions to multiple State police authorities.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the alleged inaction of law-enforcement agencies in registering and prosecuting hate-speech offences violates constitutional guarantees and statutory duties.
  2. What interim measures are necessary to safeguard fundamental rights and preserve the secular character of the nation pending final adjudication of the writ petition.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Hate speeches targeting the Muslim community are proliferating, creating a serious threat to fraternity and the secular fabric envisaged in the Preamble.
  • Despite clear statutory provisions—Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC—there has been “total inaction” by law-enforcement agencies.
  • The Supreme Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, must intervene to ensure enforcement of existing penal laws and protection of constitutional values.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the allegations raise “very serious” concerns about increasing hate speech and corresponding police inaction. Emphasising its constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights, uphold secularism, and maintain the rule of law, the Bench found that immediate intervention was warranted. The judges concluded that interim directions were necessary while the petition is examined further. Accordingly, they:

  • Issued notice to the respondents.
  • Directed the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, and the Directors General of Police of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to submit reports on actions already taken regarding the hate-speech incidents enumerated in the petition.
  • Mandated that these authorities, and their subordinates, register criminal cases suo moto for any future acts attracting Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, or 505 IPC, even in the absence of a formal complaint.
  • Warned that “any hesitation to act” in accordance with these directions would amount to contempt of the Court, with potential consequences for the erring officers.
  • Clarified that action must be taken irrespective of the religion of the offender, thereby reinforcing the secular mandate of the Constitution.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED; NOTICE RETURNABLE AS DIRECTED.

Immediate effect: Police authorities in New Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh must (1) report on past actions regarding hate speech and (2) proactively register and investigate future offences under specified IPC provisions, failing which they risk contempt proceedings. Broader implications: Although an interim order, the Court underscores that state agencies have an affirmative duty to act against hate speech, reinforcing constitutional secularism and signalling strict judicial scrutiny of official inaction.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SHAHEEN ABDULLA v. UNION OF INDIA

    1

    ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.5 SECTION PIL-W

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No.940/2022 SHAHEEN ABDULLA Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

    (FOR ADMISSION)

    Date : 21-10-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv.

    Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv.

    Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR

    For Respondent(s)

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

    The complaint which has been raised in the instant writ petition appears to be very serious. It relates to the growing climate of hate in the country. This is attributable according to the petitioner to an unending flow of what is described as hate speeches being made by various persons against the Muslim community. The instances are chronicled, though in an abridged form, in the writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is one of despondency and angst arising from the perception that despite

    2

    suitable provisions in penal law being available, there is inaction or rather total inaction.

    The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony. The petitioners points out that there are appropriate provisions such as Sections 153A, 153B, 505, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. He voices his concern that no action has been taken even after this Court has been approached in the matter and the transgressions have only increased. We feel that this Court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also preserve the constitutional values and the secular democratic character of the nation and in particular, the rule of law.

    The matter needs examination, and some form of interim directions.

    Issue notice.

    Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Respondent No.3-Director General of Police Uttarakhand and Respondent No.4- Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh will file a report as to what action has been taken in regard to such acts as are the subject matter of this writ petition within their jurisdiction. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo

    3

    moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 will therefore issue direction(s) to their subordinates so that appropriate action in law will be taken at the earliest.

    We make it clear that any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of this Court and appropriate action will be taken against the erring officers. We further make it clear that such action will be taken irrespective of the religion that the maker of the speech or the person who commit such act belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the Preamble, is preserved and protected.

    (JAGDISH KUMAR) (RENU KAPOOR)

    COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    SHAHEEN ABDULLA v. UNION OF INDIA
    (Oct 21, 2022)