Read Time: 08 minutes

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Khanwilkar and Abhay Oka today asked the Delhi Police to file a fresh affidavit in plea pertaining to alleged hate speech at the the Dharam Sansad event. The bench while expressing its displeasure on the affidavit asked the Additional Solicitor General appearing for Delhi police,

“This affidavit is filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police? We hope he understands the nuances as also the other aspects. If he has merely reproduced the enquiry report or has he applied his mind? If this is the stand, we will have to ask the Commissioner to look into it.”

The ASG submitted that he will ensure that a fresh affidavit is filed in the matter.

In its affidavit, Delhi Police has told the apex Court in relation to the December 2021 incident of alleged hate speech in Delhi that there has been no call for genocide against a particular community & that in fact, the bare perusal of video clip suggests that the speech is about empowering one’s religion & prepare for existential threats.

Delhi police has said that the petitioners have moved the Court without approaching Police and as such, they have no locus to approach the Supreme Court, the same if allowed, will open floodgates of litigation. “Such a practice must be deprecated,” the Delhi Police claims.

The above transpired in the plea in Supreme Court seeks the court’s intervention in respect of the ‘hate speeches’ that were delivered on the 17th December 2021 at Haridwar organised by Yati Narsinghanand, and on 19th December 2021 at Delhi, organised by an organization called ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’. According to the petition, the speeches were made with the apparent objective of declaring war against a significant section of the Indian Citizenry.

It is the petitioners case that the alleged call to kill was construed by the police as as is made to save the “ethics of the community”.

Himachal Pradesh:

When the application pertaining to Himachal Pradesh was called out by the court, it was noticed that the name of the standing counsel for the state did not feature in the cause list as a result of which he may not be aware of the matter being in the list today. The court then directed the registry to indicate the Standing Counsel for the State and list the matter on April 26, 2022.

Uttarakhand:

The counsel for Uttarakhand appeared before the court and submitted that he wanted to apprise the court of the action taken by the State pursuant to notice issued on January 12, 2022. The court however was not inclined to hear the same as the petitioners submitted that no issues arise on Uttarakhand. The counsel however submitted that he wishes to place certain documents on record and would like to question the locus of the petitioner for having filed this writ petition.

More:

On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court refused to the stay the Dharam Sansad event that is to take place in Himachal Pradesh, the court however granted liberty to the petitioners to move the local authorities at the place where the event is to take place. The court has further directed the State of Uttarakhand to file a status a report on the action it has taken in respect of the ‘hate speeches’ that was delivered on the 17th December 2021 at Haridwar organised by Yati Narsinghanand.

On January 12, 2022, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana issued notice in the Public Interest Litigation while expressing its apprehension on other similar matters and intervention applications being filed with regard to the same issue. The CJI said, "There are penal laws, there is a judgment of the Supreme court as per the counsel, there are enough laws. What law can we lay down now?"

The matter will not come up for hearing on April 26, 2022. 

Case title: Qurban Ali Vs Union of India