New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said he would hear on November 22.
Applications that have been looking for directions to the center to examine various international laws and take “effective and strict” steps that are suitable for controlling hatred and rumouring speeches in this country.
Judge Am Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar asked Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for the applicant, to serve a copy of Plea to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Law and Justice and Law Commission – which had been regulated as respondents in the petition.
The APEX court heard the petition, which was submitted by lawyers and BJP leaders Ashwini Upadhyay in his personal capacity through Advocates Ashwani Dubey, who also searched for the center to take legislative steps to implement the legal threat to deal with the threat of hatred and rumors of mongering.
The top yesterday said this problem will be heard on November 22, when a separate application, which also appears to hear during the day, related to this problem will also be taken.
“Applicants archive this petition as a pill …
looking for writing / order / direction to the center to check international law related to ‘hatred speeches’ and’ rumors of mongering ‘and take effective hate steps to control’ effective hate speeches for Control “and ‘rumors-mongering’ to secure the rule of law, freedom of speech and expression and the right to live, freedom and dignity of the residents,” UPadhyay said in his application.
The petition subsequently looked for the direction that the court, while giving punishment of violations of “public peace, violations relating to the selection of etc.”, will say the sentence ran in a row and not at the same time.
Urged that the government was asked to take appropriate steps to apply the recommendation of the Law Commission-267 report on hatred speech.
“The injury to the citizens is very large because ‘hatred of speech and rumors-mongering’ has the potential provoking individuals or communities to carry out acts of terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.
Hatred speech is considered outside the realm of the protective discourse,” said.
“It is undeniable, offensive and rumouring speeches have a devastating effect on the lives of the community and their health and safety risks.
Hatred speech is dangerous and divisive for the community and inhibits social progress.
If left unchecked, speech hatred can greatly influence not only legal rules But also the right to live, freedom and dignity of residents, “said the request.
In 2012, around 50,000 citizens from northeastern countries moved from their residence throughout their residence.
India and rushed to their original places after “circulating fake images from the incident of violence that occurred not in India but in Myanmar a few years ago,” he said.
Application, which refers to Indian criminal provisions (IPC)), said hatred speech is incitement for hatred, especially against a group of people defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and it creates complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression.
“The difference in approaches that can be seen between the US and other democracy.
In the US, it is given constitutional protection; whereas under international human rights agreements and in other Western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and Britain, are arranged and subject to sanctions.
This, the Petitioner argues that new provisions on the IPC must be included to solve problems complicated …
“he said.