DHARMA SANSAD

speech) still happens, we will ask your chief secretary to remain present. We are directing you to take all the necessary steps. You are bound to do it. You are not doing any favour to anyone by following the directions of this court,” a bench, headed by justice AM Khanwilkar, told the state’s deputy advocate general Jatinder Kumar Sethi earlier in the day.

Kali Sena, a religious outfit, planned to hold the event on Wednesday, with attendees scheduled to discuss “strategy” after violence during a procession for Hanuman Jayanti on April 16 in the area.

The top court also ordered the home secretary of the neighbouring Himachal Pradesh government to put on record the preventive measures adopted by the state when the Dharma Sansad was announced to be held in Una between April 17 and 19, and the actions taken after the conclusion of the event if the speakers indulged in hate speeches.

“You have to follow the guidelines laid down by this court. And if they are not being followed, you will have to answer... you have to stop this activity. These events don’t occur suddenly and are announced in advance. Your police must swing into action to ensure no untoward events take place. And what do you do after the incident occurs? You have to show us what steps you took. Did you react to the action or not?” the bench, which included justices AS Oka and CT Ravikumar, asked the counsel for Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.

Unconvinced by submissions of the lawyers of the two states regarding sufficiency of preventive steps, the court remarked that there is no lack of trust in the authorities but the ground reality remains that contentious incidents involving hate speeches are taking place despite the Supreme Court judgments in 2018 and 2019, laying down elaborate guidelines on preventing hate speeches and taking corrective measures.

“There is no problem of trust. The doctrine of trust applies 24x7, but what we see is something else on the ground. And despite our guidelines, these incidents are happening,” commented the bench, seeking the affidavits of the top officials from the two state governments by May 7.

As Sethi argued that the state government may not know the content of the speeches to be delivered at these events, the bench retorted: “If the speaker is going to be the same, you have to take immediate action. There are other ways to take preventive measures. Don’t make us say something that we don’t want to say directly. A state knows how to prevent something.”

The bench was hearing two separate applications filed by journalist Qurban Ali and former Patna high court judge Anjana Prakash in January, drawing the top court’s attention to the spate of hate speeches at religious conclaves being held in various parts of the country.

The petition had referred to a Dharma Sansad event in Uttarakhand and another event by Hindu Yuva Vahini in Delhi in December last where some speakers allegedly called for violence against Muslims and Christians. The proclamations made by various religious leaders at the event, the petition maintained, were in breach of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in its judgments in 2018 and 2019 whereby states were obligated to appoint nodal officers to curb hate speeches and act immediately against such offenders.

As the hearing commenced on Tuesday, Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners complained about lack of action by the Himachal Pradesh government in regulating the event in Una between April 17 and April 19, while seeking a better response from the authorities in Uttarakhand where another Dharma Sansad is to be held in Roorkee on Wednesday.

At this, the bench asked the counsel for the Himachal Pradesh government to place on record a detailed affidavit on how they acted in terms of the guidelines issued by the top court.

Sethi, representing the Uttarakhand government, took a categorical stand that the state is already complying with all the directives of the Supreme Court and has acted against all the offenders, irrespective of their community or religion.

The deputy advocate general questioned the bonafide of the petition, arguing: “It is an attempt to colour a community in a certain way and the community they are trying to protect is also here. We are maintaining harmony.”

The submission irked the bench. “Perhaps we need to impress upon you that this is not the way you should argue such matters. We will make the chief secretary, the home secretary and inspector general of police directly accountable if you are so confident about your actions. This is not the way you handle matters such as this,” it told Sethi.

The court then proceeded to record in its order: “We are informed another Dharam Sansad is planned in Roorkee tomorrow and another application has been filed against it. Counsel for Uttarakhand submits that all preventive measures have been taken as per Supreme Court decisions. Uttarakhand says authorities are confident that no such untoward statement will be made during the event and all steps as per decisions of this court will be taken. We direct the chief secretary of Uttarakhand to place above position on record and apprise us about the corrective measures.”

The petition was filed in January after the two separate events were organised at Delhi and Haridwar.

The event in Haridwar, held from December 17 to 19, was organised by Yati Narsinghanand, a religious leader who has been accused in the past of inciting violence with his speeches.

After videos from the event, circulated on social media, triggered outrage, the Uttarakhand police registered an FIR against some leaders present at the event, including Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi, formerly known as Waseem Rizvi, for allegedly giving a “provocative speech” against “a particular religion” (Islam) at the Dharma Sansad. Rizvi was the former chairman of the Shia Central Waqf Board who converted to Hinduism on December 6 last year in the presence of Narsinghanand. Both were arrested in connection to the FIR relating to the Dharma Sansad. While Narsinghanand was granted bail in February, Tyagi (Rizvi) remains incarcerated.

The petitioners cited transcripts of speeches at the event and said open calls were given for organised violence against Muslims and for their economic, and social boycott for ethnic cleansing. Urging the court to set up a special investigation team to probe the incident, the petition has said speeches made at the Sansad posed a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of the country but also endangered lives of Muslim citizens.