Haridwar ‘hate speech’: SC asks Uttarakhand govt to file status report on FIRs in ‘dharam sansad’ meet

A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar also allowed the petitioners to serve a copy of their fresh application against another ‘dharam sansad’, proposed to be held in Himachal Pradesh on Sunday, to the standing counsel of the state.

The bench also allowed them to take up the issue of the proposed event with the concerned authorities in Himachal Pradesh.

The fresh application was filed in a pending petition against “hate speeches that have been delivered between the 17th and 19th of December, 2021 in two events organised in Haridwar (by one Yati Narsinghanand), and in Delhi (by an organisation self-styled as ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’) with the apparent objective of declaring war against a significant section of the Indian Citizens.”.

The petition filed by Delhi resident Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash alleged laxity on the part of the police in Uttarakhand and Delhi in dealing with the matters.

The Apex court had issued a notice in the matter on January 12. Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that day that more events were being planned and there is a possibility that inflammatory speeches may be made again. Taking note of this, the court in its January 12 order gave “liberty to make a representation to, or bring it to the notice of, the concerned local authorities” so that suitable action can be taken.

On Wednesday, the standing counsel for Uttarakhand told the bench also comprising Justice Abhay S Oka that the state had filed four FIRs in the matter and also submitted chargesheets in three of them. The state also conveyed to the bench that it will file a status report and sought three weeks time for this.

Sibal said a fresh application had been filed with respect to the proposed event in Himachal.

Urging the court to issue notice to the Himachal Pradesh government, he said, “The real problem is that the event is on Sunday. And see what is happening. I don’t even want to read the kind of things that were said in public (in the previous dharam sansads)…I don’t even have to read what is here”.

The bench did not issue notice but allowed him to serve a copy of the application to the state counsel.

Sibal then referred to the January 12 order and said the court had allowed the petitioners to give representation to the district collector about the proposed events.

Responding to this, the bench, in its order, said, “Needless to observe that the applicant is free to give intimation to the concerned authorities in the State of Himachal Pradesh in light of order date.”

The main petition said that the “hate speeches (at the sansad) consisted of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing. It is pertinent to note that the said speeches are not mere hate speeches but amount to an open call for murder of an entire community. The said speeches, thus, pose a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of our country but also endanger the lives of millions of Muslim citizens”. The court will hear the case next on April 22.