In a significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the state government of Uttarakhand to respond to legal petitions before it wanting to know why people accused of delivering hate speeches, that they said pose a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of India but also endanger the lives of millions of its Muslim citizens - at a religious event in Haridwar, the Hindu pilgrim town, have not been arrested yet.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana issued notice even as petitioners contended that the declarations of communal hatred made by the speakers at Haridwar were unlike anything seen or heard before. They had made “open calls for the extermination of an entire religious community”, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaising submitted before the apex court.

“There is no law for this kind of hate speech,” Sibal said. He said the incident took a different colour from even the past instances of mob lynchings of Muslims that had taken place in the last few years. The senior lawyer, who is also a leader of the opposition Congress minister and a more cabinet minister, said more of these ‘Dharm Sansads’ (religious congregations) had been organised, the next being on January 23 in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, and they potentially posed a grave threat to communal peace and harmony. 

“If this court does not take quick steps, ‘Dharm Sansads’ would be held in Una, Kurukshetra, Dasna, Aligarh and in States where the process of election is going on. The atmosphere of the entire country will be vitiated. No arrests have taken place,” Sibal pointed out. 

The Bench advised the petitioners to make a representation to the local authorities, making their apprehensions clear that speeches in these ‘Dharm Sansads’ may run the risk of violating the penal law against hate and were against the judgments of the Supreme Court.

The Bench noted that hate speech had been the subject of several petitions already pending with another Bench of the court. If that was so, this case ought to be tagged with the earlier ones before the other Bench. The CJI, however, said the Haridwar hate speech case would be listed 10 days later, either separately or with the earlier cases.

The petitioners, former High Court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali, had highlighted that “hate speeches consisted of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing. The speeches are not mere hate speeches but amount to an open call for murder of an entire community. The 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 hate speeches were allegedly delivered between December 17 and 19 in Haridwar by Yati Narsinghanand and in Delhi by a group called Hindu Yuva Vahini (Hindu youth militia).

The petitioners sought an independent, credible and impartial probe by a special investigation team into the hate speeches against the Muslim community. The petitioners said “despite the passage of almost three weeks no effective steps have been taken by the police authorities, including non-application of Sections 120B, 121A and 153B of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), 1860 that squarely apply to hate speeches”.

The petitioners alleged before the court that the "blatant inaction by the police" in the case showed that "the police authorities are hand in glove with the perpetrators of communal hate.” 

They said that the speeches "feed into an already prevailing discourse which to reimagine the Indian Republic as exclusivist, and that which has no space for other cultures, traditions and practices. Such a discourse is in itself violative of constitutional guarantees  provided to minority cultures  and religions in India" and that the impact of such repeated speeches "shows a rise in structural...and physical violence".

(SAM)