Organizer Of Public Meeting Can’t Be Held Liable For Hate Speech Delivered By A Participant, Mere Presence Not Enough: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an individual organising a public meeting cannot be held accountable for a hate speech delivered by one of the participants over which such an organizer had no control or responsibility. “In case FIRs are registered against a person organising a meeting, for the misconduct of any participant of the meeting, it will severely impact the basic principle...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an individual organising a public meeting cannot be held accountable for a hate speech delivered by one of the participants over which such an organizer had no control or responsibility.
“In case FIRs are registered against a person organising a meeting, for the misconduct of any participant of the meeting, it will severely impact the basic principle of criminal law that a person is accountable for his own criminal actions and others are not vicariously liable for the same unless specifically provided for under law,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
It added: “The impugned conduct of one person in a public meeting cannot be tied to another person present therein holding him vicariously liable. It will be on the same corollary as if in a television or a public debate, the anchor is held liable for the comments or views expressed by another.”
The court made the observations while setting aside a trial court order directing the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Alok Kumar, on a complaint filed by activist Harsh Mander, for allegedly giving a hate speech during a VHP rally in 2019.
“Undoubtedly, inflammatory speeches will attract criminal provisions of law and such sensitive matters need to be dealt with carefully so that an order of the Court does not end up in creating divide rather than unite the people,” the court said.
Vide the impugned order, the trial court had ordered registration of FIR against Kumar for allegedly inciting violence against members of the Muslim community in relation to vandalisation of a temple that took place in Old Delhi’s Lal Kuan in July 2019. Apart from Kumar, the trial court also ordered registration of FIR against one Swamiji from Kashi.
Noting that the trial court order was completely silent about Kumar’s role and the material available against him, Justice Sharma said:
“It seems that the learned Magistrate had found the present petitioner to be vicariously liable for a speech delivered by another person present in the meeting, though no role had been assigned to him to attract criminal liability or accountability.”
The court said that even by entirely accepting Mander’s allegations that the speech in question would attract the relevant sections of law, the material on record did not disclose that any illegal act was committed by Kumar in furtherance of any common intention.
“Also, even if it is presumed that the meeting in question had been organised by the petitioner, which is not even alleged by respondent no. 1 and for which there is no material or evidence on record, it could not have been held that it amounted to commission of an illegal act simply because one of the participants delivered an alleged hate speech during a public meeting,” the court said.
Justice Sharma noted that there was no allegation that Kumar was present at the spot at the time when the alleged hate speech was delivered by Swami ji of Kashi.
“Undoubtedly, any hate speech by any person, irrespective of his religion or belief, which may lead to social disorder has to be brought within the ambit of provisions of law. However, a person against whom there is no material or evidence disclosed in the complaint or in the Action Taken Report cannot be made to face criminal proceedings,” the court said.
It added that though it was a sensitive time for the concerned area where the temple was vandalised, but “due to the efforts of both communities”, harmony prevailed and no incident of vandalism or riots took place after the public meeting.
“There is neither any place for hate speeches by any community against any person or place, nor there is any place for vandalism of idols or religious places of any community. At the same time, the right of every person to be protected from malicious prosecution also has to be guarded and it is to be ensured that FIRs be not directed to be registered in absence of any material on record, in casual and trivial manner without recording satisfaction about commission of cognizable offence and without passing a reasoned order, especially in cases where the learned Magistrate disagrees with the detailed Action Taken Report filed by the police on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted by it,” the court said.
Justice Sharma also advised that the orders for registration of the FIR by courts, filed by any community, should be passed with more circumspection as charges of communal disharmony and promoting enmity between different groups are serious charges “whose patriotism and credentials” as a well meaning citizen of the country are questioned by registration of such FIR.
“The judgment be brought to the notice of the Director, Academics, Delhi Judicial Academy and learned Registrar General of this Court, for circulation,” the court ordered.
Title: ALOK KUMAR v. HARSH MANDER & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 615