Read Time: 04 minutes
Court opined, "Whatever you have projected in the petition, that so and so person committed and did so and so, which we don't even know, who are those persons, whether were registered, when did it happen. You have justified grounds. But how do we take this?".
On Monday, a Bench of CJI U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, heard a petition stating that the Muslim Community (Minority Community) is being targeted with an aim to create Hindu Rashtra before 2024 elections. The Court expressed concerns over the statements made, however asked the petitioner-in-person to file affidavits with the incidences that the petitioner mentioned, and the background of the cases.
The matter will be heard on Novermber 1, 2022.
In the pertinent matter, Advocate Harpreet Mansukhani Saigal appeared as petitioner-in-person, who vehemently and emotionally presented the facts and the basis of the petition. She contended that the Muslim Community, a minority community is being targeted, and is fearing an impending genocide and an apparent genocide that has been carried out, which also 'must be taking place' even while she appears before the Court.
The Advocate then marked 72 hate speeches, as an "arrow that never returns" and while saying that referred to speeches at Dharma sansad, Kashmir Files (movie), RSS anthem. Further referred them as grave conspiracy against the minority community.
She has contended that not only minority community, but teachers, journalists, soldiers, actors like Sushant Singh Rajput were ordered to be killed, by certain leaders. Although, no leader or a person involved were named.
Advocate Harpreet, while presenting the facts that the petition had, even broke down several times, finding it hard to elaborate further.
Court, however, raised concerns over the subject-matter and how the Court would accept such insinuations. Although the Court did find the grounds justified.
The Bench opined, "Whatever you have projected in the petition, that so and so person committed and did so and so, which we dont even know, who are those persons, whether were registered, when did it happen. You have justified grounds. But how do we take this?".
Court further asked "the petitioner to comeback with 2-3 incidences and the background, persons who were involved, and whether the crimes were registered".
Case Title: Harpreet Mansukhani Saigal vs. Union of India & Ors.
Please Login or Register
