The Supreme Court held that there is no legislative vacuum in dealing with hate speech, as existing criminal laws already cover such offences. The petitions sought stricter laws and judicial guidelines, arguing that hate speech incidents were increasing and current laws were inadequate. The Court rejected this argument and emphasised the doctrine of separation of powers. It clarified that creating new offences is the exclusive domain of the legislature, and the judiciary cannot step in to frame penal provisions. Doing so would amount to judicial overreach and disturb the constitutional balance. The Court further observed that the real issue is not absence of law but weak enforcement. Provisions relating to promoting enmity, outraging religious sentiments, and maintaining public order already exist under criminal law. Authorities have the power to register FIRs and take action, but implementation remains ineffective. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions seeking guidelines and new offences, while leaving it open for Parliament or State Legislatures to consider reforms. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint and highlights the need for better enforcement of existing laws.