The hate speech hearing in Supreme Court remained stormy for the second day running with intense exchanges between Justice K M Joseph and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta. The Centre’s top law officer beseeched for a direction to petitioner Shaheen Abdulla through his lawyer Nizam Pasha not to target the Hindu community alone, but bring to fore hate speeches by Muslims too for a blanket clamp down on “hate speeches across religion”.
“Why petitioner Shaheen Abdullah from Kerala is blind to hate speeches close to his home? Why is he seeking to target one community in one particular state? If he is genuinely public-spirited, he must bring on record hate speeches across religions, the SG asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cited three cases from different parts of the country to “expose the petitioner’s bias”:
1. KERALA PFI VIDEO
SG Mehta vehemently pleaded before Justice K M Joseph, heading the bench hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speech, to watch a video clip of a PFI rally in Kerala in which a child carried on a man’s shoulders raised slogans containing death threats to Hindus and Christians. He repeatedly requested the Bench to issue a notice to the Kerala government to ascertain what action had been taken. However, Justice Joseph abruptly ended the hearing and directed that the next case be called.
SG Mehta strongly reacted when Justice Joseph, referring to the Kerala video clip said “we know that” but “every action has an equal reaction.” “Hate speech is a vicious circle and people will react. Most of what we see is a reaction to action,” Justice Josephs had remarked.
The SG said that, “If Lordships “know that”, then the court should have taken suo moto cognisance of this incident along with the present contempt petitions( filed by Shaheen Abdulla and Nizam Pasha regarding hate speech made at rallies in Maharashtra).”
When the Bench remarked what was seen in the clip was “a reaction”, Mehta responded by saying, “No.. no..please do not do say this as this will amount to justifying what we see in the clip. This will send across a dangerous message. This is not right”.
2. DMK SPOKESPERSON CALLING FOR GENOCIDE OF TAMIL BRAHMINS
The Solicitor General sought action against a DMK Spokesperson Rajiv Gandhi who, over Twitter, last June, called for the genocide of Tamil Brahmins “as advocated” by Periyar (EV Ramaswamy Naicker). SG Mehta said if what petitioner Shaheen Abdulla says has disturbed the court, then this should shock the conscience of the court. “If you want equality, you should butcher all Brahmins. This is what he says. Just because what he said was said some years ago by someone famous, it cannot be pardoned..it is hate speech… this DMK leader does not even face an FIR and he continues to be a spokesperson of a recognised political party” Mehta added.
3. CALL FOR THE BEHEADING OF HINDUS (SAR TAN SE JUDA)
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, on behalf of Hindu Front For Justice Trust, mentioned his plea seeking action against hate speeches allegedly by Muslim leaders. Following the sar tan se juda’ remark, there were attacks against Hindus.
“What about the statement, ‘Gustaakh e Rasool ki ek hi saza sar tan se juda sar tan se juda…’ What about this? I have filed an application,” Adv Jain told the Bench.
Jain, in his application, listed named Asaduddin Owaisi, Abkaruddin Owaisi, Zafarul Islam, Waris Pathan, Sharjeel Imam and Munawar Faruqi, accusing them of making hate speech
The build-up to this acrimonious hearing was witnessed on Tuesday.
SG Mehta on Tuesday urged the Justice KM Joseph led bench not to “convert the court into a magisterial court” by entertaining applications, contempt petitions “based on newspaper reports”, that too only against a particular community and not to “become a court of first instance” in this regard.
SG Mehta was taking serious exception to advocate Nizam Pasha piling up applications and contempt petitions before the court complaining of “hate speeches being made against Muslims in rallies in various states, and a number of them recently in Maharashtra” and in most cases citing newspaper reports.
“This Court is being converted into magistrate court.. this court can’t be the court of first instance. He (petitioner Shaheen Abdulla) cannot be selective if he is a public-spirited citizen, ask him to collect hate speeches across religions and ask for the same relief. Otherwise, his bonafide cannot be trusted and will be questionable,” SG Mehta had told the Bench.
