Uttarakhand Communal Tensions | High Court Directs State To Maintain Law & Order, Asks Parties To Refrain From Social Media Debates

Amidst a spike in communal tension in Uttarakhand’s Uttarkashi district, the Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday directed the State Government to ensure that law and order is maintained in all parts of the State and no loss of life or property of any person occurs. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Rakesh Thapliyal issued the direction while issuing notice in a PIL filed by an organisation named 'Association for the Protection of Civil Rights' seeking directions to stop a 'mahapanchayat' announced by Hindutva groups in Purola today and registration of FIRs against persons who have issued ultimatum to Muslims in the area to vacate the place.

During the hearing, Advocate General of Uttarakhand SN Babulkar informed the bench that the 'mahapanchayat' has been called off at the intervention of the State and that the situation has been diffused to that extent. While recording this statement, the bench directed the the State to fulfil its constitutional obligations. 

The bench also directed the petitioner, its associations and all others concerned to refrain from social media debates on the issue to normalise the situation. 

"We would not like flare up on social media with allegations and counter allegations. Or debates on television or social media", Chief Justice orally said.

Ultimatum issued to Muslims, says petitioner

Advocate Shahrukh Alam cited before the bench a 2022 order of the Supreme Court directing the Uttarakhand police to lodge suo motu first information reports (FIR) in hate speech cases even without any formal complaint. She also referred, among other material, to a letter dated 05.06.2023 allegedly sent in the letter head of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the District Magistrate of New Tehri District threatening to block the highway on June 20 if Muslims living in certain belts of the state did not leave their homes. She argued:

"This letter presumes lesser rights for Muslims in India. To make the administration complicit and urge them to help evict Muslims from the state...This letter was sent on June 5, but no action has been taken over the ten days. No FIR is registered against the signatories of this letter. This narrative is multiplied and is repeated on social media, in posters, and also on a television channel - Sudarshan TV. Ignoring such a letter is a breach of a specific order of the Supreme Court, as also several sections of the Indian Penal Code, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act since it. The UAPA provisions are directly applicable because the letter is calling for acts against national integrity and causes disharmony. Provisions of IPC are also attracted. The inaction of the authorities has led to constitutional harm. Because there is a sense of impunity, people are seeing structural violence, leading to immense psychological fear, insecurity and social and economic boycott. In view of this constitutional harm, I am seeking relief."

Alam expressed her concern that not only the 'Maha panchayat' organised by the Hindutva groups, but also a counter 'Maha panchayat' proposed to be held on June 18 by Muslim religious leaders would lead to 'physical violence', as different from the systemic and structural violence that has already taken place. Advocate General SN Babulkar, however, informed the bench that the 'Maha panchayat' had been called off, besides highlighting the steps the administration had taken to maintain law and order in the area. He added that one FIR has been registered over posters allegedly put on the shops of Muslim traders. In response, Alam said that the FIR is not comprehensive and is invoked against unidentified persons.

"You have to ensure that the peace and law and order are not disturbed," Chief Justice Sanghi instructed the top law officer. However, the bench expressed its disinclination to direct the registration of FIRs against the signatories of the threatening letter as well as incendiary social media posts, with the chief justice saying, "Let the police decide whether there is any cognizable offence. If you have further grievances, you can approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure." The bench also noted that petitioner has not made the organisations like VHP and Bajrang Dal, against whom allegations were levelled, as parties in the petition.

Alam also stressed that Muslim traders should be allowed to open their shops in Purola town, which had been shut following the rise in communal tension. "Where is the order by the State or anyone that the shops will not be allowed to be opened?", Chief Justice asked.

"There may be no official order but because of fear and polarisation, people are not able to open their shops. There are ground reports," Alam replied. However, the counsel for the state government remonstrated, saying, "People from Delhi persons are not aware of the ground reality."

Issuing notice to the respondents and directing the State to file its counter affidavit within three weeks, the bench pronounced:

"We are not inclined to direct the registration of the case, as it would be inappropriate considering the fact that it is first and foremost for the police to examine whether the commission of any cognizable offence is disclosed. Secondly, even if the police are not acting, it is for the concerned magistrate to examine under 156(3) CrPC. The directions sought by the petitioner would lead to undue influence on the concerned statutory authorities and courts.

At the same time, we observe that it is the paramount duty of the State to ensure that law and order is maintained in all parts of the State and there is no loss of life or property of any person in the State. We, therefore, direct the State to fulfil its constitutional obligations.'