Critics of the current situation argue that the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene ignores the broader context of how police power is often weaponized against political opponents. In many instances, the filing of multiple hate speech complaints is used as a tactical tool to harass, intimidate, and silence dissenting voices. By forcing a politician to appear before the police in such a climate, the court may inadvertently be facilitating a process that is more about political vendetta than genuine criminal investigation.
There is a growing concern that the threshold for what constitutes hate speech is being applied selectively. When authorities target opposition leaders with legal notices, it creates a chilling effect on free speech, making public figures hesitant to criticize the government or express controversial opinions. The argument here is that the judiciary should play a more active role in scrutinizing whether these police actions are based on legitimate evidence or are merely part of a strategy to keep political rivals occupied with legal battles.
Furthermore, the court's comparison to historical figures, while rhetorically powerful, may overlook the practical reality of modern political harassment. The burden of constant police appearances, travel, and legal preparation is significant, and for an active politician, it serves as a major distraction from their legislative duties. If the legal system does not provide a safeguard against potentially frivolous or politically motivated complaints, the democratic process itself suffers as representatives are forced to spend their time in police stations rather than in parliament.
This perspective warns that without judicial oversight, the police can become an instrument of the ruling party. The risk is that the law is used not to uphold justice, but to exhaust the resources and energy of those who challenge the status quo. By declining to intervene, the court has left the door open for continued pressure on political figures, raising questions about whether the legal system is providing enough protection against the misuse of state machinery.