Hate Speech : Supreme Court Petitioner Writes To Authorities Against Future Dharam Sansad Meets

Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner in the PIL seeking criminal action with respect to the Dharm Sansad conclave held at Haridwar and Delhi has written to the District Magistrates of Aligarh, Una and Haridwar seeking to take preventive action to ensure that no speeches of such nature are allowed at the proposed events.

The complaints have been addressed to the Chief Ministers of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, Election Commission of India, Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Superintendent of Police of Haridwar, Una and Aligarh.

The complainant is journalist Qurban Ali, who is one of the petitioners in the PIL seeking criminal law action against the anti-Muslim hate speeches at the Dharam Sansads held in Haridwar and Delhi in December 2019. Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, former judge of the Patna High Court, is the other petitioner. On January 12, while issuing notice in the petition, the Supreme Court had allowed the petitioners to file approach the authorities against the possibility of inflammatory speeches in the proposed Dharm Sansad meets.

It has been stated in the complaint that if such events are held in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand as well and similar speeches are made, it would not only disturb the public order but will amount to various criminal offences.

Noting that there are news reports now that another 'Dharam Sansad' is being organised in Aligarh on January 22-23, 2022 and in Una on March 4-6 2022 wherein the speakers who participated in the aforementioned events held between 17-19th December, 2021 are likely to be speaking again, the petitioners in the complaint have said that,

"The responsibility to take preventive measures to prevent any possible incident of mob violence therefore falls on the district administration, and you are in charge of the administration in Aligarh and Una, so the responsibility falls on your shoulders to take preventive action to ensure no speeches of this nature are made."

The petitioners have also written a letter to the District Magistrate of Haridwar in view of a protest meeting announced by Shankaracharya Parishad to be held on January 16, 2022 against the FIR registered against speakers at the December 17-19 meeting of the Dharma Sansad. In this regards they have stated that,

"The responsibility to take preventive measures to prevent any possible incident of mob violence therefore falls on the district administration, and you are in charge of the administration in Haridwar, so the responsibility falls on your shoulders to take preventive action to ensure no speeches of this nature are made."

Requesting the authorities to take preventive action, the complaint further states that if such speeches are made in the midst of an election they would destabilize the social order and have serious consequences on the polity of this country

"We are in the midst of general elections to the Legislative Assembly and while we do not want to attribute motives to any person, but if such speeches are made in the midst of an election, they will destabilize the social order and have serious consequences on the polity of this country. We request you to take such preventative action within your powers as is necessary, including under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Sections 3 and 5 of the National Security Act, 1980," the complaint states.

Reliance has been placed on Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501 to aver that although the Top Court had directed the State Governments to appoint nodal officers in each district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence but nodal officers have not been appointed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh.