The Supreme Court said that anchors of television channels have an important duty to ensure that guests invited on their show do not cross the line.
Taking a dim view of the functioning of mainstream television news channels in the country, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stated that they often give space for hate speech and then escape without any sanctions.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said that anchors of television channels have an important duty to ensure that guests invited on their show do not cross the line.
"Role of anchor is very important. These speeches on mainstream media or social media that is unregulated. Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of anchor is critical. It is their duty to see that hate speech doesn't happen," Justice Joseph remarked.
He stated that while freedom of speech is important, hate speech cannot be allowed on television and highlighted how one TV channel was heavily fined in the United Kingdom.
Explaining on why hate speech interests viewers, the apext court said: "Hate speech is layered... Like killing someone, you can do it in multiple ways, slowly or otherwise. They keep us hooked based on certain convictions."
The Court also orally demanded to know as to why the government was remaining a mute spectator. "Why is the government remaining a mute spectator?" asked Justice Joseph.
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking steps to be taken against hate speech incidents in the country. In July, the top court had directed the Union Home Ministry to prepare a detailed chart outlining States’ compliance with general directions issued by it in the judgments of Shakti Vahini and Tehseen Poonawalla, towards curbing hate speech.
During today's hearing, the Court said that politicians benefit the most out of hate speech and television channels give them the platform for the same.
One of the petitioners, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay asked whether the Court is equipped to go into individual violations each and every time it occurs. The court agreed to Upadhyay's point and said that such incidents will keep happening unless there is an institutional method to deal with it.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Representational Image")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}