Prompt Action Irrespective Of Religion Ensures No Hate Crimes, Justice KM Joseph Says On His Last Hearing Day Of Case
Yesterday (May 17), was the last day of the hearing of the hate speech and hate crime matters before the bench led by Justice KM Joseph, as the Supreme Court judge is set to retire on June 16 (May 19 is his last working day before Court closes for summer vacations).During the previous hearings in the case, Justice Joseph has expressed serious concerns about the rise in hate speeches and...
Yesterday (May 17), was the last day of the hearing of the hate speech and hate crime matters before the bench led by Justice KM Joseph, as the Supreme Court judge is set to retire on June 16 (May 19 is his last working day before Court closes for summer vacations).
During the previous hearings in the case, Justice Joseph has expressed serious concerns about the rise in hate speeches and the inaction of authorities against it. The bench led by him has passed significant directions that police in all States and UTs should take suo motu action against hate speech offences, irrespective of religion, without waiting for any formal complaint.
"I do not think anyone has any interest other than the best interest of our nation. The only point is, when you take action promptly - irrespective of religion, irrespective of anything else - and just make [India] into a country ruled by the rule of law. There will be no problems", Justice Joseph said on Thursday. The bench led by him was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking directions to regulate hate speech and also another petition filed by an individual who alleged inaction by Noida police in investigating a hate crime committed against him.
To tackle the growing menace of hate crimes, especially against minorities, the directions issued by the Supreme Court to curb hate speech would have to be extended to hate crimes as well, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi suggested on Tuesday.
The senior lawyer was appearing a plea by a Muslim sexagenarian claiming that he was a victim of a hate crime in July 2021. Not only this, but the elderly Muslim man also alleged that he had to run from pillar to post for the police to take cognisance, which finally concluded that the crime committed against him was not a hate crime, but a simple theft.
"I am certain when the matter is taken up on the next occasion, it will be taken to its logical conclusion," Justice Joseph replied to Ahmadi's suggestion to extend the court's directions regarding hate speech to hate crime.
The senior counsel also expressed his gratefulness for the intervention of the top court, saying, "Everything started moving only after this court demanded to see the case diary. After that, the State acknowledged that there was a crime and registered an FIR. I am grateful." However, before concluding, he pointed out that certain sections had not been included in the FIR which ought to have been included. He also told the bench that he had prepared a note on the issue of awarding compensation for the delay in registering a police complaint. Ahmadi further said:
"There is a preambular promise of fraternity. That is what was impinged upon here. Registering an FIR in respect of a hate crime promptly is also in aid of that particular goal."
The senior counsel also requested the bench to hear this matter separately. "The issue of hate speech is diverse from this issue," he said. The matter was adjourned to August 4. The other batch of hate speech cases was also adjourned to August (separate report about hearing in that matter can be read here).
Background
In July 2021, 62-year-old Kazeem Ahmad, a resident of Delhi’s Zakir Nagar, was allegedly waylaid, assaulted, and looted by four persons in Noida. The elderly Muslim man has claimed that he was specifically targeted because of his religion and was a victim of a hate crime. He has also accused the Uttar Pradesh police of inaction, saying that despite visiting his house, police personnel refused to accept his written complaint.
Subsequently, Ahmad moved the Supreme Court, seeking action against the erring officers as well as compensation for victims of hate crime. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi pointed out before a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna that the state government, while recording the crime as a ‘theft’, refused to register it as a hate crime. “There is hesitancy on the part of the state government to register these crimes. They want to bring down the number of these crimes so that the criminal record shows that there are no hate crimes,” the senior counsel told the bench.
However, senior advocate and UP additional advocate-general Garima Prashad vehemently objected to this claim, saying, “This itself is a media-driven allegation and case.” Upon investigation, she claimed, no evidence was found suggesting that religious slurs or manhandling was involved.
"How did the police come to the conclusion that this was a case of theft? Were there witnesses? Do you have the case diary?” the bench asked the law officer, who replied that the government had verified everything and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. She also emphasised that the entire investigation was carried out by the Delhi police and that allegedly there were contradictions in Ahmad’s statements. However, the opposing counsel exclaimed, “The attitude of the state is that the victim is a liar.” He also said that the police routinely discouraged people from filing such cases, especially if they belonged to minority communities.
“Both sides can't be true. We would like to know where the truth lies,” the bench said, as it directed the State to be ready with the case diary and other records for the perusal of the court. The bench also cautioned that ordinary people would become ‘innocent victims’ if cases involving hate speech were not taken seriously.
Earlier directions passed by Justice Joseph's bench in hate speech cases
Last year in October, a bench headed by Justice KM Joseph directed the Governments of NCT of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to take suo motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any complaint. Failure to take action against incidents of hate speech - irrespective of the religion of the maker of such speech – would be contempt of court, the bench warned. While issuing a set of interim directions to curb hate speech, the Supreme Court observed, “There cannot be fraternity unless different religious communities are available to live in harmony.”
Subsequently, several incidents of hate speech were brought to the notice of the top court. In February this year, one Shaheen Abdullah approached the court seeking a ban on an impending meeting of the Sakal Hindu Samaj, a coalition of several right-wing Hindu nationalist outfits. The petitioner cited alleged instances of anti-Muslim rhetoric used by the right-wing group during a previous rally. The bench adjourned the hearing after recording an undertaking made by the State of Maharashtra that if permission is granted for the Sakal Hindu Samaj to hold its proposed meeting in Mumbai, it would be subject to the condition that no one would make any hate speech, act in defiance of law, or disturb the public order. Not only this, but the bench also directed the state police to, if the permission was granted and the occasion arose, to invoke Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the police to make preventive arrests. The bench further accepted the demand of the petitioner that the meeting should be recorded on video, and issued an appropriate direction to that effect to the police inspector of the area.
In March, a contempt petition was filed based on a news article published in the Indian Express which stated that as many as 50 rallies spurring hate had taken place in Maharashtra over the previous four months. Besides seeking the response of the state government, the Supreme Court also repeated its concerns over failure of authorities to take prompt action against instances of hate speech. Justice Joseph exclaimed in anguish, “State is impotent, state is powerless; it does not act in time. Why do we have a State at all if it is remaining silent?”
In an important development – having pan-India repercussions – the apex court extended its earlier order with respect to the governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to the rest of the country in April. The bench directed all states and union territories to take suo motu action against hate speeches and register FIRs without waiting for any formal complaint.
The bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna pronounced:
“Respondents shall ensure that immediately, as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC etc, without any complaint being filed suo motu action be taken to register cases and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. Respondents will issue directions to the subordinates so that appropriate action can be taken at the earliest. We further make it clear that such action be taken irrespective of the religion of the maker of the speech, so that the secular character of Bharat as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved.”
Case Title
Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 391 of 2021