The Supreme Court in the case Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani vs State Of W.P. observed and has heard the batch of pleas which sought to curb hate speech in the country. The division bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagarathna was hearing the matter. In the present case, the broad category cases include – the pleas filed against the ‘UPSC Jihad’ campaign by Sudarshan News TV, the pleas filed against the ‘Corona jihad’ campaign in the wake of the Tablighi Jamaat issue, the pleas filed against Dharam Sansad meetings where anti-Muslim statements were allegedly made, and the plea seeking broad guidelines to curb hate speech. During the hearing, the counsel, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi informed the bench about the case wherein a complaint is registered of a man from Uttar Pradesh that he was attacked and abused on account of his religion. It has been stated by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi that, the gentleman was a Muslim, he had a beard and a cap. Therefore, on 04.07.2021., he being on his way from Noida. Some people uttered several things about his religion, beat him up, and stole his money. He then went of to the police station for narrating these facts. He had to run from post to pillar. From investigation it is said that it being not a hate crime but theft. Adding to it Huzefa stated that what’s the message that you (state) are sending to the victim of this crime? I ask myself. Thus, why should this man want to file a false complaint?. The counsels, Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate Garima Prashad, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the same itself is a media-driven allegation and case”! She added that upon investigation, it was being found that there were no religious slurs or no manhandling involved. A coupled of questions was asked by the bench to AAG. Further, it has been asked by Ahmadi that, my learned friend said that there’s a contradiction in the amount stolen. How does it be having any bear on the nature of the crime?. It has also been pointed out by him that the State is always hesitant to record such crimes while adding that the state should be more sensitive when citizens’ rights are involved. There being hesitancy on the part of the State government to register these crimes. Thus, they wanted to bring down the number of these crimes so that the criminal record shows that there are no hate crimes. The court then told the AAG that to bring all the records on the next day. It has also been warned by the bench that the people from the community would be the “innocent victims” if the cases are involving hate speech are not taken seriously. Accordingly, the bench stated that it would detag this matter from the rest of similar cases and that being a test case, the Court, added that both sides can’t be true. ‘Both sides cannot be true, this court would like to know where the truth lies’ However, the court then asked the State government to be present with the case diary in two weeks for the next hearing. Further, the court ordered that the state shall be ready with the case diary.