Hate Speech Case : Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow Plea Seeking Action Against Hindu Jan Akrosh Event In Mumbai
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear tomorrow an intervention application seeking to prohibit an alleged hate speech event organised by Hindu Jan Aakrosh Sabha in Mumbai. Alleging that ant-Muslim hate speech was made at the rally organised by the outfit on January 28 in Mumbai, the petitioner seeks to stop the next proposed event by it in the city. After the matter...
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear tomorrow an intervention application seeking to prohibit an alleged hate speech event organised by Hindu Jan Aakrosh Sabha in Mumbai. Alleging that ant-Muslim hate speech was made at the rally organised by the outfit on January 28 in Mumbai, the petitioner seeks to stop the next proposed event by it in the city.
After the matter was mentioned today, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy and Aniruddha Bose asked the counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the IA to the counsel appearing for Maharashtra.
"Serve a copy on the State, we will list it tomorrow subject to the orders of the CJI", the Bench said.
Advocates Nizam Pasha and Rashmi Singh, appearing for the intervenors brought to light a rally conducted by Hindu Jan Aakrosh Sabha on January 28 in which called for the social and economic boycott of Muslims. The rally was attended by 10,000 people, it was argued.
"We want action to be taken in terms of my Lords' order dated October 21", Singh argued.
Observing that the "there cannot be fraternity unless different religious communities are available to live in harmony", the Supreme Court, on October 21, issued a set of interim directions in a plea to curb hate speeches in the country. A key direction was asking authorities to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without waiting for a complaint.
"There will be one rally on Sunday, another rally on Wednesday. Every time, you will trigger the Supreme Court? Just imagine, for every rally, there will be an application before the Supreme Court. How can that be feasible at all?”, Justice Roy asked.
Singh argued that follow up is important in such cases of hate speech. "Milords have already passed an order".
"Surely, we have passed an order and it is clear enough. What is your remedy? On an event-to-event basis, Supreme Court should not be asked to pass orders”, the Bench observed.
“Magnitude of this rally is so big. I'm on the basis of your Lordships' Oct 21 order” Singh reiterated.
“I come from an area of rallies. 10,000 is not a big number. Let's take it that way”, was Justice Roy’s response.
The Bench further questioned why the IA should be heard tomorrow. "It's an anticipatory kind of a thing".
We have passed a strong order, the Court said while adding that an IA is not the remedy if the orders of the Supreme Court are not implemented.
"If SC court orders are defied, what is the remedy? Not an IA.... Are you asking us to reiterate our order? Don't think that we are against you but every time a rally is notified, you cannot trigger the Supreme Court into action" Justice Joseph said while adding, "We have nowhere said that you can't hold a rally. We don't know what the contents of the speeches are going to be, what their actions are going to be…”
"You are on the expectation that they are going to repeat it. What you are asking for is preventive action", Justice Joseph further asked.
We are asking for preventive action as well as consequential for what has already happened, Singh replied.
A rally maybe called for raising legitimate grievances, Justice Joseph said.
Advocate Pasha, who joined mid-hearing argued that previously (in Qurban Ali's case) the Court had said that authorities can be alerted whenever there's anticipation/advertisement of an event propagating hate speech or spreading disharmony. Intimation was sent to authority and no action was taken, he said.
A simple order seeking a status report would be sufficient, he said.
"(In that case), milords had called for a status report. In the last hearing we had mentioned that what is lacking is the will to enforce law because law is already in force. A simple order from my Lords calling for a status report, what measures were taken and what speeches were made is sufficient to take care of the situation on the ground".
The court then ordered for the case to come up tomorrow.
The IA stated that several rallies were being conducted which has resulted in a very legitimate apprehension of communal persecution and it requires the Top Court's urgent attention.
"That it has now come to the knowledge of the Petitioners that several events and rallies have taken place across Maharashtra calling for the economic and social boycott of the Muslim community. Allegations of “land jihad” as well as “love jihad” are being made to criminalize the entire Muslim community. Thousands of people have taken part in these rallies and events and resultantly a very legitimate apprehension of communal persecution has arisen that requires the urgent attention of this Hon’ble Court".
During the rally, a BJP MLA T Raja Singh openly calling for the killing of Muslims, the IA said.
"Such open support to radical elements by the Political party on power is more than enough to create a chilling effect in the minds of the Muslim community".
Case Title: Shaheen Abdullah versus Union of India W.P.(C) No. 940/2022