India, May 1 -- In an ideal world, a modern secular republic would not need separate laws curtailing hate speech. Existing provisions clamping reasonable fetters on free speech - as they do in India - would be adequate to deal with elements trying to exploit religious, political or caste-based fault lines for vested interests. In such a world, the police would be impartial in registering cases against those trying to instigate violence. Unfortunately, this is far from an ideal world. Despite orders from the Supreme Court, local administrations often hesitate to book those trying to exploit local disturbances. Many cases against people accused of offending religious feelings are either flimsy or politically motivated. As a result, hate speech flourishes unchecked. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court's latest order - saying that existing penal laws adequately address hate speech - appears incongruent with reality. The top court reminded public figures of their duty to exercise restraint in public discourse, holding that hate speech is antithetical to the constitutional value of fraternity and strikes at the moral fabric of the republic. But it dismissed the petition seeking separate offences for hate speech and rumour-mongering, describing the petition as "misconceived" in assuming that the field of hate speech remains "legislatively unoccupied". There are two issues here. One, the apex court's earlier direction to the states to register cases against those indulging in hate speech is now observed largely in the breach. As noted earlier by this newspaper, several verdicts over the past decade have dwelled on what constitutes hate speech and how governments should combat it, but the political will to crack down on such acts is too feeble, given the possibility of electoral benefits. Moreover, despite laying down substantive principles and legal doctrines, some courts have been reticent in actively intervening in actual cases of hate speech. Two, the absence of a legal definition of hate speech puts too much discretion in the hands of the executive and law enforcement machinery, and opens the door for political influence. It also hobbles any effort to tackle the perpetrators of hate speech in a court of law. This can be reversed only with a stringent law against hate speech and more active involvement by the judiciary to ensure that new statutes are not weaponised by the State against political opponents or dissidents. The top court should reconsider....