Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the government for failing to curb hate speeches in the country. The apex court was hearing a petition by Harpreet Mansukhani. A bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court said that no action is being taken by the government on the need to immediately stop hate speech.
“You are right that the whole atmosphere is getting spoiled by these hate speeches and it needs to be stopped'' the bench said. Appearing in person, the petitioner Harpreet Mansukhani said that before the 2024 general elections, a hate speech was delivered to make India a Hindu Rashtra. The Supreme Court also sought answers from the Uttarakhand and Delhi governments as to what action has been taken by the police against those who delivered hate speeches in the Parliament of Religions held in the state and national capital last year.
Also read: SC directs hate speech accused to surrender by Sept 2 in Haridwar Dharma Sansad case
During the Dharma Sansad held in Haridwar from November 17 to 19 2021 and in the garb of this event, the participants were instigated to wage a war against Muslims. The participants, including Narsindhanand Giri, Sagar Sindhu Maharaj, Dharamdas Maharaj, Parmanand Maharaj, Sadhvi Annapurna, Swami Anand Swaroop, Ashwani Upadhyay, Suresh Chavan, along with Swami Prabodhanand Giri, Jitendra Narayan, were booked under various sections of the IPC for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the name of religion at the conclave.
The petitioner Harpreet Mansukhani said, "Hate speech has been turned into a profitable business. One party funded the Kashmir Files and then I have proof how it was funded and then made tax-free”. The petitioner said that hate speech is like an arrow, which cannot be taken back once it is released. CJI Lalit said, "The court needs the factual background to take cognizance in such cases. We need some examples. Otherwise it is like a random petition."
To this, the petitioner, on his part, said that an affidavit would be filed on his behalf citing instances of hate speeches in which criminal cases were not registered. The bench gave time till October 31 to submit an additional affidavit focusing on certain incidents and details of the offence under consideration regarding steps taken during the investigation. The petitioner can also give details as to whether offences were registered and who are deemed to be offenders. The bench agreed and adjourned the hearing of the matter to November 1.
