New Delhi, April 30 -- Law is adequate to punish hate speech, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, as it turned down a petition to declare it and rumour mongering as separate offences under the penal code, saying constitutional courts cannot compel the legislature to create laws and underlining the enforcement deficit. "Creation of criminal offences lies within the legislative domain. The judiciary cannot create new offences in keeping with the separation of powers under the Constitution," said a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. "While we decline to issue directions of the nature sought, we deem it appropriate to observe that the issues relating to hate speeches and rumour-mongering bear directly upon the preservation of fraternity, dignity and Constitutional order," Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict. Advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a petition in 2021 seeking the declaration of hate speech as a separate offence. The court has since taken up pleas over hate speech, including during the 2023 Haridwar Dharam Sansad. It has issued interim orders directing police to mandatorily register cases in such matters. Dismissing all petitions in the matter, the bench said they arise not from a deficit in law but in enforcement. "The contention that hate speech is an unoccupied field in law is misconceived. Existing legislation is adequate to deal with hate speech as there exists no legislative vacuum." The bench said hate speech and rumour-mongering affect the constitutional ideal of fraternity. It added that it will be open for the government to consider suitable amendments to the law. The bench emphasised that the police have a duty to register cases in such matters, citing the Lalita Kumari judgment (2013), mandating registration of cases if any information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence. "The aggrieved person can also approach the court for registering an FIR [first information report]," the bench said. It added that the legislative architecture is complete. The court held that a magistrate is empowered to direct FIR as a prior sanction required under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 196, 197, 298, and 302 of BNS, dealing with words or acts intended to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity, applies at the time of cognisance of the charge and not at the pre-cognisance stage. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all high courts. It left it open to the high courts to consider issuing practice guidelines for implementing the judgment....