Dec 19, 2024 03:05 PM IST
‘Dharam Sansad’ is organised in Ghaziabad by Yati Narasinghanand – a controversial figure known for making communally sensitive remarks
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a contempt petition filed against the Uttar Pradesh administration and police for allegedly failing to prevent the ‘Dharam Sansad,’ organised in Ghaziabad by Yati Narasinghanand – a controversial figure known for making communally sensitive remarks, even as it directed the state authorities to take all necessary precautions to ensure that hate speeches are not made during the event.
“Please keep track of what is happening, recordings of the event should be there. The mere fact that we are not entertaining this petition does not mean violations should occur,” a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and justice PV Sanjay Kumar told additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, representing Uttar Pradesh.
Pointing out that it would not be possible for the Supreme Court to entertain such pleas directly, the court noted that it expects compliance by the authorities with its previous directions to curb hate speech.
Also Read: Over 12,000 trees cut in Delhi in under 1K days, SC told
“We are not inclined to entertain (the petition). We reiterate the earlier orders that district officers must take all precautionary measures to ensure compliance,” noted the bench.
The petitioners, a group of former civil servants and activists including retired IAS officer Aruna Roy and former Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed, argued that the advertisements and website for the ‘Dharam Sansad’ openly incited hatred and violence against the Muslim community. They claimed that despite representations to the Ghaziabad administration and police, no action was taken to prevent the event, violating the Supreme Court’s earlier directions for proactive measures against hate speeches. The event is scheduled from December 17 to 21.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, pointed out the inaction of authorities and Narasinghanand’s history of hate speeches against the Muslim community, the court advised approaching the high court instead.
“We should not be the first court to be approached in such matters…if we entertain one, we will have to entertain all,” said CJI Khanna, adding that bail cancellation could be sought if there were violations by Narasinghanand, who is already on bail in multiple hate speech cases.
The ‘Dharam Sansad’ events organised by Narasinghanand have drawn controversy in the past.
In 2021, his remarks led to his arrest in hate speech cases, although he was released on bail after some time in custody. The Supreme Court has also issued notices to him in a separate criminal contempt case over his statements targeting the judiciary.
The petitioners contended that the authorities had failed to act in line with the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla Vs Union of India, which outlined guidelines to prevent hate crimes and instigation for violence, including hate speech. These guidelines require states to appoint nodal officers at the district level to monitor and prevent hate speech and report violations.
In its previous hearings on similar petitions, the Supreme Court had acknowledged the challenges of nationwide monitoring of hate speech incidents. The bench underscored the need for strengthening the 2018 guidelines, particularly by holding district-level authorities accountable. It has also been monitoring the compliance by the Centre and states with a slew of previous orders requiring nodal officers – not below the rank of superintendent of police, to maintain case diary of hate speeches, installing CCTVs at places where the police apprehended trouble and sensitising police about reporting hate speeches to the nodal officer.
To be sure, there is no definition of hate speech under the Indian penal law and the offenders are booked under the provisions dealing with creating enmity between two different groups, acts intended to outrage religious feelings and statements conducive to public mischief.
In 2021, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a lead petition seeking a distinct legal framework for hate speech, highlighting the lack of clarity in existing laws. The Law Commission of India’s 267th Report, released in 2017, proposed two new provisions to address hate speech, recommending penalties including up to two years of imprisonment for offences involving incitement to hatred or discrimination. However, these recommendations are yet to be acted upon.
Get Current Updates on…
See more
