"Time To Give Message To Anti-Socials Who Spread Hatred Based On Religion By Hate Speech": Gurugram Court Denies Bail To Rambhagat Gopal

A Gurugram Court today dismissed the Bail Plea filed by Rambhagat Gopal while observing that the faith of common man has to be restored that the State is having the Secular character and not in support of such kind of persons, promoting hatred and enmity in the name of religion, caste etc.

"It is the time to give a strong message to such anti-social elements who distribute hatred based on religion etc by way of Hate speech that the Rule of Law still prevails," the Court ruled.

Allegedly, he had delivered a hate speech qua instigating abduction and killing of girls and persons of a particular religious community and its recording was perused by the Court.

He himself admitted before the Court that the person who is seen giving an inflammatory speech in the Video recording at the time of occurrence was the accused i.e., Rambhagat Gopal Sharma. Thus, the Court concluded that at the instant stage of the bail application, prime-facie, the reliability of the video clip produced before the court couldn't questioned.

Calling his alleged hate speech a form of violence in itself, Judge Mohd. Shageer remarked thus:

"...such people and their inflammatory speeches are obstacles to the growth of a true democratic spirit. It leads to the destruction of our society as people will fight based on religion. Religious tolerance is the need of the time and not Intolerance. It is necessary for individuals within the society to get along, especially when a variety of cultures and people with different religious beliefs live in one community or nation."

Breaking- Gurugram Court rejects bail plea of 'Ram Bhakt Gopal' arrested for delivering an inciting speech during a Mahanpanchayat

"If such persons are allowed to move freely and to indulge in such kind of activities, the very existence of communal harmony may be disturbed." pic.twitter.com/1DpfRtI7Hy

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 16, 2021

The Court was of the view that hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on the vulnerable that can range from discrimination to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.

"Hate speech also impacts a protected group's ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy," added the Court.

Further, the Court opined that these kinds of incidents have become very common nowadays and the common man is under constant threat of violence in the name of religion, caste, etc.

The Court also stressed that if such kind of persons are allowed to move freely and to indulge in such kinds of activities, the very existence of communal harmony may be disturbed and that will give a wrong message that these types of acts are acceptable in the society.

The Court also noted that he is not a simple innocent young boy knowing nothing rather, he is showing that what he has done in past, has now become capable to execute his hatred without any fear and also that he can move the mass to involve in his hatred.

Remarks on him being minor

When his Counsels submitted that he was allegedly minor at that time, the Court observed that the concession given by the courts of law due to his minority has not been taken in good sense by him

Further, noting that he has posed a real threat by his act that he will do whatever he wishes, the Court denied him and remarked thus:

"It seems that he has taken the concession in the wrong perspective that he can do anything even to destroy the very fundamental feature of the constitution which we called 'secularism' by his hate speech and also that there is no force to stop him as if he is protected by some indefeasible forces and the Rule of Law does not exist in our country. He also posed a question to the state and to the courts of law whether it has the power to uphold the Rule of Law?"