💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • One Case One Data & Su Sahay

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India has launched two major digital initiatives: “One Case One Data” and “Su Sahay”. These initiatives aim to modernise judicial administration and improve access to justice through technology.

    One Case One Data

    • “One Case One Data” is a nationwide digital integration initiative announced by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
    • It seeks to create a unified judicial data management system connecting:
      • Supreme Court
      • High Courts
      • District Courts
      • Taluka Courts

    Objective

    • Streamline case management
    • Build a comprehensive digital judicial database
    • Improve coordination among courts
    • Reduce duplication and delays

    Su Sahay

    • “Su Sahay” is an AI-powered chatbot integrated with the Supreme Court website.
    • It has been developed by:
      • National Informatics Centre (NIC)
      • Supreme Court Registry
    • Objective: To provide easier access to court-related information and services for litigants.

    Role of National Informatics Centre (NIC)

    • NIC is the premier technology institution under the Government of India responsible for:
      • E-governance infrastructure
      • Digital public platforms
      • Government IT services
    [2022] Consider the following: 
    1. Aarogya Setu 
    2. CoWIN 
    3. DigiLocker 
    4. DIKSHA 
    Which of the above are built on top of open-source digital platforms? 
    (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2, 3 and 4 only (c) 1, 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • “Medical negligence claims can be pursued against a deceased doctor’s heirs, says SC “

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court, in May 2025, ruled that medical negligence proceedings can continue even after the death of the accused doctor if the claim relates to financial loss recoverable from the doctor’s estate. The judgment creates a distinction between personal claims such as pain, suffering, or reputational damage, which extinguish upon death, and pecuniary claims, which survive against legal heirs to the extent of inherited property. The ruling is significant because it modifies the traditional common law principle “actio personalis moritur cum persona” and strengthens consumer rights in healthcare disputes. 

    What constitutional and legal principles govern medical negligence liability in India?

    1. Article 21: The Supreme Court of India interprets the right to life as including the right to health. This mandates that both public and private healthcare providers maintain standards that ensure accessible and accountable care.
    2. Consumer Protection Framework: Treats healthcare as a “service” under consumer law, enabling compensation claims.

    Legal Principles & Tests

    • The Bolam Test: This is the primary standard used by Indian courts. A doctor is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals, even if a different body of opinion exists.
    • Jacob Mathew Guidelines: To prevent the harassment of doctors, criminal prosecution for negligence requires a high degree of “gross” negligence. Police cannot arrest a doctor without an independent opinion from a competent medical board.
    • Res Ipsa Loquitur: Meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” this principle is used when the negligence is so obvious (e.g., leaving a surgical tool inside a patient) that the burden of proof shifts to the doctor to prove they were not negligent.
    • Tort Liability: Recognizes compensation for breach of duty causing injury or loss.

    How did the Supreme Court interpret survivability of medical negligence claims?

    1. Pecuniary Liability: Allows continuation of claims involving financial loss against the deceased doctor’s estate.
    2. Personal Claims: Extinguishes claims involving pain, suffering, defamation, or reputational injury upon death.
    3. Estate Accountability: Restricts liability only to the value of property inherited by legal heirs.
    4. Substantive Justice: Prevents procedural termination of compensation claims merely due to death of the accused.
    5. Consumer Protection Continuity: Ensures pending medical negligence complaints remain maintainable under law.

    Why did the Court revisit the common law doctrine “actio personalis moritur cum persona”?

    1. Traditional Principle: Held that personal legal actions die with the person.
    2. Indian Modification: Indian statutes progressively restricted the absolute application of the doctrine.
    3. Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855: Permitted suits involving monetary losses against estates of deceased persons.
    4. Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 306 preserved rights to prosecute or defend actions except in strictly personal injuries.
    5. Judicial Modernisation: Adapted colonial common law principles to contemporary consumer rights jurisprudence.

    What statutory provisions formed the basis of the judgment?

    1. Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855
      1. Monetary Claims: Permits legal proceedings against legal representatives for financial loss caused by the deceased.
      2. Estate Limitation: Restricts recovery to inherited estate and not personal assets of heirs.
    2. Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925
      1. Survival of Actions: Preserves rights to prosecute or defend legal proceedings after death.
      2. Exceptions Clause: Excludes defamation, assault, and purely personal injuries not causing death.
    3. Order XXII of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
      1. Substitution Mechanism: Enables replacement of deceased parties with legal representatives.
      2. Procedural Continuity: Prevents automatic abatement where right to sue survives.
    4. Consumer Protection Act
      1. Section 13(7): Applies CPC provisions regarding death of parties to consumer disputes.
      2. Consumer Rights Protection: Facilitates continuation of compensation claims in healthcare disputes.

    How does the judgment strengthen consumer rights in healthcare?

    1. Compensation Continuity: Ensures victims are not denied remedy due to death of the doctor.
    2. Institutional Accountability: Reinforces trust in civil compensation mechanisms.
    3. Access to Justice: Prevents procedural loopholes from defeating substantive claims.
    4. Victim-Centric Jurisprudence: Prioritizes restitution for financial injury suffered by patients.
    5. Legal Certainty: Clarifies ambiguity regarding maintainability of pending negligence claims.

    What concerns emerge from the judgment?

    1. Liability Uncertainty: Creates ambiguity where legal heirs inherit no estate.
    2. Enforcement Challenges: Complicates determination of extent of inherited assets.
    3. Defensive Medicine: May increase risk-averse medical practices in critical care.
    4. Litigation Expansion: Could increase long-pending compensation disputes against estates.
    5. Professional Anxiety: Raises concerns regarding prolonged legal exposure for medical practitioners and families.

    How does the judgment affect the healthcare ecosystem?

    1. Medical Governance: Strengthens accountability standards in healthcare delivery.
    2. Insurance Relevance: Increases importance of professional indemnity insurance for doctors.
    3. Hospital Liability: Encourages institutional compliance and risk-management systems.
    4. Patient Awareness: Expands understanding of legal remedies available in medical negligence.
    5. Judicial Oversight: Enhances role of courts in balancing professional autonomy with patient rights.

    Conclusion

    The judgment strengthens patient rights and accountability in healthcare by allowing pecuniary medical negligence claims to continue against a deceased doctor’s estate. It reflects the expanding scope of Article 21, consumer protection, and substantive justice in India’s healthcare governance framework.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] In a crucial domain like the public healthcare system, the Indian State should play a vital role to contain the adverse impact of marketisation of the system. Suggest some measures through which the State can enhance the reach of public healthcare at the grassroots level.

    Linkage: The PYQ focuses on State accountability in ensuring accessible and ethical healthcare amid rising commercialization of the sector. The present judgment strengthens patient rights, consumer protection, and medical accountability, linking healthcare governance with Article 21 and professional ethics.

  • Dawoodi Bohra Excommunication Case and Sabarimala Hearing 

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India, during hearings linked to the Sabarimala Temple review case, questioned the maintainability of PILs challenging the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

    Background of the Case

    • Challenge relates to the power of Dawoodi Bohra religious leaders to: Excommunicate members from the community
    • Based on the 1962 judgment in: Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs State of Bombay
    • The practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community is a long-standing and controversial religious authority exercised by its head, the Dai-ul-Mutlaq. 
      • It involves the formal expulsion of a member, resulting in a “civil death” where the individual is barred from communal assets like mosques and burial grounds.

    1962 Supreme Court Judgment

    • Upheld excommunication as a protected religious practice under Article 26(b) 
    • Article 26(b) grants religious denominations the right to manage their own religious affairs.

    Maharashtra Social Boycott Law (2016)

    • Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016
    • Prohibits various forms of:
      • Social boycott
      • Ostracisation
    • Makes excommunication punishable

    Key Constitutional Questions

    • Religious Rights vs Individual Rights
      • Whether denominational rights under Article 26 can override: Human dignity and Individual freedoms
    • Maintainability of PILs
      • Can a Constitution Bench judgment be challenged through: PILs under Article 32?

    Important Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 32Article\ 32Article 32
      • Right to constitutional remedies
      • Allows citizens to approach Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
    • Article 26Article\ 26Article 26
      • Freedom to manage religious affairs by denominations
    [2021] We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model? 
    1. As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited. 
    2. In India, matters related to the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court. 
    Select the correct answer using the code given below. 
    [A] 1 only [B] 2 only [C] Both 1 and 2 [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • Supreme Court on Misuse of PILs 

    Why in the News

    Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India remarked that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has increasingly turned into “private interest litigation”, “publicity interest litigation”, and “paisa interest litigation” during hearings in the Sabarimala review case.

    What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

    • A legal mechanism allowing courts to address issues affecting the public at large
    • Developed by the Indian judiciary after the Emergency period
    • Intended to improve access to justice for:
      • Poor
      • Marginalised
      • Vulnerable groups

    Concerns Raised by the Court

    • PILs increasingly filed for:
      • Personal interest
      • Political motives
      • Publicity
      • Financial gain (“paisa interest litigation”)
    • Court stressed difference between:
      • Genuine public interest
      • Unnecessary interference

    Key Legal Concept

    • Locus Standi
      • Right of a person or organisation to bring a case before court
      • PIL relaxed traditional rules of locus standi

    Important Constitutional Aspects

    • PIL linked with:
      • Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)
      • Article 226 (High Court writ jurisdiction)

    Constitutional and Legal Context

    • Inter State and International Rivers
      • Water is a State subject under State List
      • Union can regulate inter state rivers under certain conditions
    [2022] With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: 
    1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty. 
    2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
    3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto. 
    Which of the statements given above are correct? 
    [A] 1 and 2 only [B] 2 and 3 only [C] 1 and 3 only [D] 1, 2 and 3

  • Increase in the Strength of the Supreme Court Judges 

    Why in the News

    The Union Cabinet has approved increasing the strength of the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38 judges, aiming to address the growing pendency of cases.

    Key Highlights

    • Current sanctioned strength: 34 judges (including CJI)
    • Proposed new strength: 38 judges
    • Amendment required in: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956

    Constitutional Provision

    Article 124(1)

    • Provides for establishment of the Supreme Court
    • Parliament has power to increase number of judges by law
    YearAmendment Act NameJudges (Excl. CJI)Total Strength
    1950Constitution of India (Original)78
    1956Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act1011
    1960Amendment Act, 19601314
    1977Amendment Act, 19771718
    1986Amendment Act, 19862526
    2009Amendment Act, 2008 (Enacted 2009)3031
    2019Amendment Act, 20193334
    2026Amendment Bill, 2026*3738

    Reason for Increase

    • Rising pendency of cases
    • Current backlog: over 92,000 cases
    • Increased filings after:
      • Expansion of e filing system
      • Post pandemic litigation growth

    Appointment Process

    • After amendment, Supreme Court Collegium recommends names
      • Collegium System: System where senior Supreme Court judges recommend judicial appointments and transfers
    • Appointments made by the President of India
    [2024] The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in? 
    (a) The President of India 
    (b) The Parliament 
    (c) The Chief Justice of India 
    (d) The Law Commission

  • [1st May 2026] The Hindu OpED: Should PIL jurisdiction be reconsidered?

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?Linkage: The PYQ directly addresses evolution, expansion, and consequences of PIL, which is the core theme of the article. The second part critically links to judicial overreach and institutional balance, exactly reflecting concerns raised in the debate on reconsidering PIL jurisdiction.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Debate on the scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has resurfaced due to increasing concerns over its misuse, judicial overreach, and dilution of its original purpose. While PIL once transformed access to justice in India, recent trends show “agenda-driven litigation,” “ambush PILs,” and excessive judicial intervention in executive domains. The issue is critical for balancing judicial activism with institutional discipline.

    What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

    Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism in India that allows any citizen or organization to file a lawsuit in a High Court or Supreme Court to protect the rights or interests of the public at large, particularly marginalized or disadvantaged groups. It bypasses the traditional “locus standi” rule, meaning a person filing the case doesn’t need to be personally aggrieved.

    Key Aspects of PIL

    1. Purpose: To ensure social justice, enforce human rights, and promote public welfare, rather than enforcing individual legal rights.
    2. Subject Matter: PILs often address issues such as environmental pollution, terrorism, road safety, construction hazards, human rights violations, and public health.
    3. Legal Basis: It is a form of judicial activism, primarily developed through interpretations by the Supreme Court, rather than being defined in a specific statute.

    Legal Mandates and Guidelines

    While there is no “PIL Act,” the process is governed by specific legal provisions and court-mandated rules:

    1. Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Allows a Magistrate to take action against public nuisances, serving as a lower-level legal tool for public interest matters.
    2. Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XXXVIII specifically regulates the procedures for filing PILs to ensure they are not misused.
    3. Judicial Guidelines: In cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court established clear guidelines to verify the credentials of petitioners and ensure that only genuine public causes are entertained, preventing frivolous litigation.

    Where should courts draw the line in who can file PILs?

    1. Locus Standi Relaxation: Enabled access to justice for marginalized groups; e.g., Hussainara Khatoon case expanded prisoner rights.
    2. Citizen Standing Expansion: Allowed individuals without direct injury to file PILs, shifting from representative to open-ended standing.
    3. Risk of Over-expansion: Created scope for individuals with no direct stake to litigate, weakening judicial discipline.
    4. Need for Direct Stake: Ensures only affected or genuinely interested parties approach courts, reducing frivolous litigation.

    Do PILs risk judicial overreach into executive functions?

    1. Judicial Activism: Courts intervened in governance gaps, ensuring accountability in cases of executive inaction.
    2. Overreach Concerns: Courts increasingly encroach into policy domains reserved for the executive.
    3. Case Illustration: Courts declined direct intervention in hate speech regulation, directing authorities instead highlighting limits of judicial power.
    4. Institutional Balance: Requires respecting separation of powers while ensuring accountability.

    Are PILs becoming tools for strategic or ‘ambush’ litigation?

    1. Ambush PILs: Filed strategically to secure early dismissal or interim relief.
    2. Blocking Genuine Claims: Prevent legitimate litigants from accessing justice.
    3. Example: Petitions filed with intent to influence outcomes rather than resolve issues.
    4. Structural Issue: Rooted in the flexible nature of PIL itself.

    Has PIL diluted due process and procedural safeguards?

    1. Bypassing Procedures: Courts sometimes relax procedural rules in PIL cases.
    2. Example: Environmental cases like MC Mehta show limits of judicial capacity in long-term governance issues.
    3. Registry Filtering: Supreme Court Rules, 2013 require scrutiny, but enforcement remains inconsistent.
    4. Cost Imposition: Courts have imposed penalties to deter frivolous PILs.

    Have courts ensured compliance with PIL directives?

    1. Weak Enforcement: Compliance often depends on judicial monitoring during hearings.
    2. Post-Judgment Gap: Limited follow-up after final judgment reduces effectiveness.
    3. Contempt Proceedings: Rarely used, weakening enforcement capacity.
    4. Need for Oversight: Retention of limited supervision post-judgment ensures accountability.

    What is the role of amicus curiae in PIL proceedings?

    1. Expanded Role: Courts rely heavily on amicus curiae in complex cases.
    2. Risk of Overreach: Amicus sometimes assumes quasi-judicial functions.
    3. Example: TN Godavarman case expanded forest jurisprudence but raised concerns about accountability.
    4. Need for Guidelines: Clear boundaries required to maintain neutrality.

    What reforms are needed to strengthen PIL jurisdiction?

    1. Threshold Criteria: Ensures only cases involving rights violations or executive inaction are entertained.
    2. Restrict Policy Formation: Prevents courts from acting as policymakers.
    3. Representation of Marginalized: Ensures PIL retains focus on vulnerable groups.
    4. Clear Guidelines: Standardizes admissibility and procedural norms.

    Conclusion

    PIL remains a powerful instrument for social justice but faces credibility challenges due to misuse and overreach. Institutional safeguards, stricter admissibility criteria, and adherence to separation of powers are necessary to preserve its legitimacy while ensuring continued access to justice.

  • Supreme Court on Abortion Law for Minor Rape Victims 

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India has asked the Union government to consider removing the time limit on abortion in cases involving minor rape survivors, while hearing a case allowing termination of a 30 week pregnancy of a 15 year old survivor.

    Background

    • Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (amended in 2021):
      • Abortion allowed up to 24 weeks for special categories
        • Rape survivors
        • Minors
        • Women with disabilities

    Key Observations of the Court

    • State or doctors cannot decide for the survivor
    • Decision should rest with:
      • Survivor
      • Parents or guardians
    • Emphasised reproductive autonomy and dignity
    • Forcing continuation of pregnancy may cause lifelong trauma

    Court’s Suggestions

    • Amend law to:
      • Remove time limit for abortion in minor rape cases
      • Ensure speedy trial (within one week)
      • Provide compensation to victim (including property of accused)

    Legal and Constitutional Aspects

    Article 21

    • Right to life and personal liberty
    • Includes reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity
    • Reproductive Rights: Recognised as part of privacy and dignity

    Key Issues Highlighted

    • Conflict between: Foetal rights vs rights of the survivor
    • Importance of informed consent
    • Role of doctors: Provide medical guidance, not impose decisions

    Important Concepts

    • Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP): Legal framework governing abortion in India
    • Reproductive Autonomy: Right of a woman to make decisions about her body and pregnancy
    [2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice? 
    (a) Article 19 (b) Article 21 (c) Article 25 (d) Article 29

  • Hate speech stems from an ‘us versus them’ mindset

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court recently held that hate speech comes from an “us vs them” mindset. It weakens fraternity and social harmony. The Court refused to ask for new laws. It stressed poor enforcement of existing laws as the real problem. This is important because public debate often demands stricter laws. The Court says laws already exist but are not applied well. Petitions showed hate speech continues despite past judgments. This points to a system failure, not a legal gap.

    What is the constitutional and philosophical basis of the Court’s observation?

    1. Fraternity as a constitutional value: Ensures social cohesion and unity in diversity as part of the Preamble.
    2. Moral fabric of society: Strengthens dignity and mutual respect among citizens.
    3. Civilizational ethos: Reflects Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, emphasizing universal brotherhood.
    4. Antithesis of hate speech: Undermines inclusiveness by promoting exclusion and hostility.

    Why did the Court refuse to mandate new laws on hate speech?

    1. Judicial restraint: Preserves separation of powers by avoiding legislative functions.
    2. Existing legal framework: Includes provisions under IPC/BNS addressing public order and incitement.
    3. Institutional role clarity: Limits judiciary to interpretation and application of law.
    4. Avoidance of overreach: Prevents creation of parallel regulatory regimes.

    What are the existing hate speech laws in India?

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Ensures freedom of speech.
    2. Article 19(2): Allows restrictions for public order and morality.
    3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
      1. Section on promoting enmity: Penalizes speech causing hatred between groups.
      2. Public mischief provisions: Punish rumours leading to fear or violence
    4. Representation of People Act, 1951:
      1. Electoral hate speech: Bars appeals based on religion, caste, etc.
    5. IT Rules and IT Act:
      1. Online regulation: Targets fake news and harmful content.

    What explains the persistence of hate speech despite legal provisions?

    1. Enforcement deficit: Weak implementation by law enforcement agencies.
    2. Administrative failure: Inconsistent application of laws across regions.
    3. Delayed justice delivery: Reduces deterrence effect of existing laws.
    4. Societal normalization: Continued tolerance of divisive narratives.

    How does hate speech threaten constitutional order and public harmony?

    1. Erosion of fraternity: Weakens unity in a diverse society.
    2. Public order disruption: Leads to inter-group hostility and violence.
    3. Institutional strain: Challenges governance and law enforcement credibility.
    4. Democratic decline: Undermines inclusive participation and trust.

    What role should institutions play in addressing hate speech?

    1. Law enforcement agencies: Ensure consistent and unbiased application of laws.
    2. Judiciary: Uphold constitutional values through interpretation.
    3. Legislature: Maintain clarity and adequacy of legal provisions.
    4. Civil society: Promote awareness and counter divisive narratives.

    What broader societal transformation is required?

    1. Mindset shift: Moves from identity-based exclusion to inclusive citizenship.
    2. Ethical reinforcement: Promotes empathy and respect in public discourse.
    3. Educational reforms: Integrates constitutional values into curricula.
    4. Media responsibility: Reduces sensationalism and misinformation.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court reframes hate speech as a societal and enforcement issue rather than a legislative gap. Addressing it requires strengthening institutional accountability and nurturing constitutional values of fraternity and inclusiveness.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.

    Linkage: This question reflects the idea that Fundamental Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, similar to Article 19(2) limits on hate speech. The Supreme Court judgment reinforces that free speech is not absolute and must align with public order, dignity, and fraternity.

  • Sabarimala Review and Religious Reform 

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India, while hearing the Sabarimala review case, observed that courts cannot reform religion, even as debates continue on balancing religious freedom and constitutional rights.

    Background of the Case

    • Concerns entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala Temple
    • 2018 judgment allowed entry, upholding right to worship
    • Review petitions challenge this verdict

    Key Observations by the Court

    • Courts cannot initiate religious reform
    • Reform must come from within religion or society
    • Need to balance:
      • Religious practices
      • Constitutional values

    Arguments Presented

    For Reform (Indira Jaising’s View)

    • Religion must evolve to remain relevant
    • Equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21) cannot be subordinate to religion
    • Religious practices must align with constitutional morality

    Concerns Raised by Judges

    • Reforms should not destroy core religious identity
    • Need to avoid excessive interference in doctrinal matters

    Key Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 14: Right to equality before law
    • Article 21: Right to life and dignity
    • Article 25: Freedom of religion and worship

    Important Legal Concepts

    • Essential Religious Practices Test
      • Determines which practices are essential to a religion
      • Only essential practices get constitutional protection
    • Constitutional Morality: Principles like equality, dignity, and justice guide interpretation of laws
    [2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice? 
    (a) Article 19
    (b) Article 21
    (c) Article 25
    (d) Article 29

  • Supreme Court on Hate Speech 

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India, in an April 2026 judgment, highlighted that hate speech and rumour mongering threaten the constitutional value of fraternity, but declined to direct enactment of new laws, emphasizing effective enforcement of existing legal provisions.

    Key Observations of the Court

    • Hate speech arises from an “us versus them” mindset
    • It promotes exclusion and discrimination
    • Undermines fraternity and unity in a diverse society
    • Considered against constitutional morality and civilisational ethos
    • Linked to the idea of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (world is one family)

    Constitutional Provisions Involved

    • Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression
    • Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions on grounds like:
      • Public order
      • Decency
      • Morality
      • Sovereignty and integrity
    • Fraternity (Preamble): Ensures unity and sense of brotherhood among citizens

    Legal Position on Hate Speech

    • No single comprehensive law exclusively defining hate speech
    • Covered under various provisions:
      • Indian Penal Code sections related to
        • Promoting enmity
        • Public mischief
      • IT laws for online content

    Court’s Stand

    • Court cannot legislate new laws
    • Responsibility lies with: Legislature and Executive
    • Focus should be on better implementation of existing laws

    Key Concepts

    • Hate Speech: Speech that incites hatred, discrimination, or violence against groups
    • Fraternity: A constitutional value promoting unity, dignity, and brotherhood
    [2017] The mind of the makers of the Constitution of India is reflected in which of the following? 
    (a) The Preamble 
    (b) The Fundamental Rights 
    (c) The Directive Principles of State Policy 
    (d) The Fundamental Duties