Hindu Sena Leader Approaches Supreme Court Opposing Plea Seeking Action Against Dharam Sansad Speeches

The National President of Hindu Sena has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in and oppose the PIL which seeks criminal action for hate speech against the speakers at the Dharm Sansad conclave held at Haridwar and Delhi.

The intervention application has been filed by Mr Vishnu Gupta in the writ petition filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash (former judge of Patna High Court). A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli had on 12th January issued notice in the writ petition Qurban Ali and another versus Union of India and others.

The intervention application has also sought directions to the State governments to register F.I.R against Asaduddin Owaisi, Tauqeer Raza, Sajid Rashidi, Amanatullah Khan, Waris Pathan for allegedly making hate speeches.

Referring to journalist Qurban Ali who is the first petitioner in the case, the applicant has argued that the petitioner who belongs to Muslim Community is not supposed to raise objections against the affairs or activities related to Hindu Dharm Sansad.

The applicant has further argued through the present petition an effort is being made to scandalise the spiritual leaders of Hindus.

According to the applicant, the organizing of Dharm Sansad by Hindu spiritual leaders can not be treated as against any other religion or faith, and ought not to have been objected.

The applicant has argued that the statements by religious leaders were responses to attacks on Hindu culture and civilisation made by members of the non-Hindu community and such replies would not come in the purview of "Hate Speech".

It has also been argued that hate speech as alleged by the petitioner on the face of it cannot be ascertained unless a detailed enquiry is made by the investigating officer. Every statement cannot be treated as hate speech.

"The Constitution of India provides equal protection to the followers of all faith and religion, in this context reference may be made to Article 19(1)(a) and (b) read with Article-25 of the constitution of India." the application states

While stating that every citizen of this country has freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion, the applicant has argued that holding Dharma Sansad by Hindus is protected by Article 19(a)(b) and Article 25 of the constitution of India. Therefore the objections of the Petitioner in the matter are against the constitutional scheme and encroachment on Fundamental Rights of Hindus, the applicant argues.

Last week, the Uttarakhand Police had arrested Yati Narsinghanand and Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly Wazim Rizvi) in connection with the hate speech crime registered over the Dharam Sansad speeches.

 Case Details: Qurban Ali & Anr vs Union of India & Ors