E-Paper
Supreme Court pulls up police in Delhi hate speech case
The instruction to the police was in response to a petition jointly filed by a former Patna high court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali seeking action against events at Haridwar and Delhi where speeches targeting Muslims were made, and calls were given to make India a “Hindu nation”.
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Delhi Police to have a “relook” at their affidavit claiming that no hate speech was delivered at the Hindu Yuva Vahini event in December. Giving two weeks to the police to file a better affidavit, the bench asked if the officer filing the affidavit understood the nuances and other aspects of taking such a stand before the highest court in the land. The court also asked the Union government to respond to a plea seeking a separate law on hate speech.
The court’s directions came in response to two among a clutch of petitions it was hearing on hate speech. The instruction to the police was in response to a petition jointly filed by a former Patna high court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali seeking action against separate but similar events at Haridwar and Delhi, both held in December , where speeches targeting Muslims were made, and calls were given to make India a “Hindu nation”. The one seeking the Union government’s response was based on a PIL filed by Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who wanted a separate law on hate speech and rumour mongering along the lines of a recommendation made by the Law Commission of India in 2017.
In response to the first petition cited above, the Delhi Police filed an affidavit last week denying that there was anything said against Muslims that could be classified as hate speech in the Delhi event. The affidavit was filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police Esha Pandey, based on a report on the December 19 event prepared by the investigating officer, sub-inspector Abhishek Kumar of the Okhla police station.
A bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and AS Oka found the affidavit difficult to accept and said: “Has any superior officer applied their mind on whether such a statement can be made on affidavit?. Is this the understanding of the higher officers or they have merely reproduced what is stated in the enquiry report?.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, told the court, “Please read the speech. I am not reading it. They say be ready to kill to protect the ethics of the community. This court may delineate what ethics are there in this issue. The speech was given by Sudershan News TV’s chief editor Suresh Chavhanke”.
The affidavit by the police said, “After inquiry and evaluation of the alleged video clip (of the Delhi incident), it was concluded that the alleged speech did not disclose any hate words against a particular community as alleged…and nothing was said or done which could create an environment of paranoia amongst any religion.”
The court asked additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj representing Delhi Police, “We hope this officer, being a senior officer, understands the nuances and other aspects of this affidavit? Is the officer accepting the contents of the (enquiry) report as correct or needs to have a relook at the entire matter?”
ASG Nataraj replied, “We need to have a relook of the matter. We will file a better affidavit explaining every circumstance.” The court directed the Delhi police to file a “better” affidavit by May 4 and posted the matter for hearing on May 9.
The Uttarakhand government, responding on the action taken against the Haridwar hate speech event submitted a status report. But this was not considered as Sibal said that he did not wish to press that issue for now and asked the court to look at a “more serious” Dharam Sansad held at Himachal Pradesh’s Una district from April 17-19. “What is said there is scandalous. Do you want me to read it?,” Sibal said. Since no lawyer was representing the state, the bench listed the matter separately on April 26 after Sibal said it needed to be heard urgently.
On the inaugural day of Dharam Sansad held at Una on April 17, Yati Narsinghanand said that “Hindus must have more children to make sure India doesn’t become an Islamic nation”. He claimed that 50% Hindus will be converted, and if they don’t become strong, 40% of their population will be wiped out in next 20 years.
A day later, he described himself as guard dog of Hindus whose job is to alert the community about the threats they were facing in the present times. “I am the guard dog of Hindus who is alerting them about the threat looming on the community. However, attempts are being made to suppress my voice by terming my statements divisive,” alleged the controversial priest of Dasna temple.
The Uttarakhand government’s lawyers told the court that in their status report they have updated the progress of investigation made in the four FIRs registered in connection with statements made at the Dharam Sansad and rival statements by Muslim community. The state represented by deputy advocate general Jatinder Kumar Sethi said, “The petition was filed questioning the action by Uttarakhand police and now when status report is filed, the petition goes to another state where elections are to be held. We are objecting to the locus (legal right) of the petitioner in this matter.”
In the Haridwar event several speakers, including Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati urged Hindus to take up weapons.
The bench also heard a petition filed by three army veterans against the hate speeches at Haridwar and Delhi but the bench refused to issue notice as the issue was already pending before it.
It heard Upadhyay’s petition argued by senior advocate Vikas Singh that requested the court to consider international laws on the issue of hate speech as the Indian Penal Code was not sufficient to deal with such situations. “Anonymity of internet allows a miscreant to easily spread false and offensive ideas,” Upadhyay said
The court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file a response to the petition and posted the matter for May.
