76 Supreme Court Lawyers have written a letter to CJI NV Ramana concerning the two separate events organised in Delhi (by the Hindu Yuva Vahini) and Haridwar (by Yati Narsinghanand) on 17th and 19th December 2021, asking him to take suo moto cognisance of alleged hate speech made at the two events.
The signatories, which include the likes of Prashant Bhushan, Salman Khurshid, Dushyant Dave, have requested for issuance of directions for taking action against the ‘guilty persons’ under Sections 120B, 121A, 124A, 153A, 153B, 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has also been made.
“The aforementioned events and the speeches delivered during the same are not mere hate speeches but amount to an open call for the 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 letter read.
It further said, “In view of the seriousness and gravity of the aforementioned events it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordship may take suo-moto cognizance of the same and direct that action be taken against the guilty persons under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A, 153B, 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.”
The letter demanding the Chief Justice of India to intervene and take suo moto cognisance of the events and the speeches was written even though swift action was taken by the police in filing an FIR and launching a probe into the matter. Yet, the lawyers felt compelled that the alleged hate speeches made in different events in Delhi and Haridwar deserved Supreme Court’s intercession.
What is staggering is the stunning alacrity with which lawyers have moved the Supreme Court and their discretion in picking and choosing incidents selectively to draw the top court’s attention towards them.
Differential treatment meted out to hate speech at ‘Dharma Sansad’ and hate speech, hate crimes committed against Hindus
Even as videos of speeches made at ‘Dharma Sansad’ started doing the rounds on the internet, social media was also rife with videos of AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi making provocative speeches in one of his rallies in Uttar Pradesh.
In the speech, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi said, “I want to tell the police. Remember this. Yogi will not be the Chief Minister forever. Modi will not remain the Prime Minister forever. We Muslims are silent because of the times, but remember we will not forget the injustice. We will remember your injustice. Allah, by his powers, will destroy you, Inshallah. We will remember. Times will change. Then who will come to save you? When Yogi will go back to his mutta, when Modi will go to the mountains, then who will come to save you. Remember, we will not forget.”
But the lawyers who displayed missionary zeal in demanding the top court’s involvement in the ‘Dharma Sansad’ case did not sign a letter asking for the Supreme Court to initiate action against Owaisi. Like many other hate speeches and dog whistles made against the majority, this too, was conveniently ignored and considered unworthy of being reported to the country’s apex court.
A week before the ‘Dharma Sansad’ event, Punjab was rocked with two cases of lynching incidents, wherein two persons lost their lives after frenzied mobs thrashed them to death over suspicion of committing sacrilege. It was a brazen assault on the law and order of the state, an unabashed attack on the sanctity of life. Yet, the lawyers did not feel the urgency to ask the Chief Justice of India to step in and take suo moto cognisance of the matter.
Last year, Delhi was convulsed with the horrifying spasm of violence as anti-CAA protesters indulged in anti-Hindu riots under the pretext of carrying out peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Many Hindus were at the receiving end of the attacks carried out by Muslim mobs, including one Dilbar Negi, who was burnt alive after his limbs were chopped off during the Anti-Hindu Delhi riots in the national capital.
Ankit Sharma, an IB sleuth who was stripped naked by a mob to ascertain his religious identity before being hacked to death, was another Hindu man who had fallen victim to the Delhi riots. But the same lawyers who are demanding CJI’s intervention in the alleged hate speech case in ‘Dharma Sansad’ did not consider hate crimes committed against Hindus scandalising enough to approach Chief Justice.
No letter or request was made to the top court or the CJI then demanding an expedite inquiry into the horrifying hate crimes committed against Hindus in the country’s capital. Similarly, the grotesque killing of Ankit Saxena, a 23-year-old boy from Delhi, was killed by his Muslim girlfriend’s family on account of his religion.
Saxena’s murder was one of the most brazen acts of hate crimes committed by culprits because of the victim’s religious identity. Still, the lawyers did not regard it serious enough to urge the Supreme Court to take suo moto cognisance in the matter. Instead, the matter was allowed to fizzle out as media organisations and Islamists presided over whitewashing the role of his Muslim girlfriend’s family in his murder and peddling a false narrative that his murder was not an act of communal hatred.
Hate speech takes precedence over hate crimes committed against Hindus
Dilbar Negi, Ankit Sharma, Ankit Saxena are but a few cases of hate crimes committed against Hindus. They gained national prominence probably because they took place in the national capital and were, therefore, widely covered by media organisations, even though some of them did so to water down the atrocities committed by the Islamists.
There have been countless cases of hate crimes against Hindus that don’t make national headlines owing to oversight or obscurantism practised by some organisations such IndiaSpend that commissioned a now-defunct ‘hate tracker’ that twisted facts to portray seemingly ordinary crimes with Muslim victims as religiously motivated while pulling a veil over hate crimes against Hindus.
Just as some media organisations and journalists look the other away when hate crimes are committed against Hindus, similarly, the lawyers too, seemed to have left Hindus to fend for themselves as they rush to the Supreme Court demanding suo moto action against alleged hate speech in ‘Dharma Sansad’. Perhaps, for them, the alleged hate speech by Hindus is a much bigger threat facing the country than the rampant hate crimes committed against Hindus.
