The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has dismissed the plea of Lucknow University professor Ravi Kant seeking to quash an FIR filed against him for making derogatory comments on Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Hindu saints.
According to the reports, an FIR was lodged against Lucknow University professor Ravi Kant at Hasanganj police station last week on charges of creating enmity between two communities and disturbing social harmony.
During a debate on journalist and former AAP member Ashutosh’s YouTube channel Satya Hindi, Ravi Kant had made derogatory comments against Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Hindu saints.
The FIR was registered against Prof Ravi Kant at Hasanganj Police Station under sections 153-A, 504 and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 166 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act. The FIR has been registered against Prof Ravi Kant at Hasanganj Police Station under sections 153-A, 504 and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 166 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act.
The complaint against prof Ravi Kant was registered by Aman Dubey, a student of Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS) hostel. In his complaint, Dubey said Prof Ravi Kant made indecent remarks during a debate that took place on May 9. He said that the professor had hurt the sentiments of Hindu students, and he also attempted to vitiate the harmony of the University. As he was confronted by the students after the video was leaked, the professor called goons who attempted to assault the protesters, the complaint had said.
Hearing the plea filed by Ravi Kant, the division bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra and Justice Manish Mathur said that the court has the occasion to pursue the FIR, and the FIR in question does disclose a cognizable offence.
“In view of this, there is no occasion for this court to quash the FIR as has been prayed on behalf of the petitioners. As such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this court,” the court added.
The court also noted that as per the FIR, the maximum punishment for the offence was less than seven years, and so the police station concerned must act according to related provisions of the code of criminal procedure.
Following his comments, the members of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) had staged a protest against the Professor at Lucknow University. They demanded the sacking of the professor. The University administration had also sought an explanation from the professor. However, Prof Ravi Kant had claimed that the issue had been resolved.
Ravi Kant Chandan had also claimed that he was attacked by a student on the university campus during the protest in the presence of a security guard.
Here is what Ravi Kant had said in the show:
Prof Ravi Kant had participated in a discussion on Journalist Ashutosh’s YouTube channel Satya Hindi. During the show, the professor said the five women who submitted a plea in the court to allow them to worship in Gyanvapi did not know about the “history” of why Aurangzeb demolished it. He continued to refer to a book by Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Feather And Stones.
There is a section by the name “Aurangzeb and the Benares Temple” in the book on page 177. The book alleged that though Aurangzeb is called a bigot in religion, there was a story about why he demolished the temple. The author of the book alleged that once Aurangzeb went to see the Kashi Vishwanath temple. A Queen of Kutch was with him. When they were returning, the Queen went missing.
Upon searching for her, she was found in the basement of the temple. The book reads, “It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of picking out wealthy and be-jewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the temple, decoying them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their jewellery. What exactly would have happened to their life, one did not know.”
It further stated Aurangzeb, after watching what was happening in the temple, ordered to demolish it. The Queen, who was saved, insisted on building a mosque in that place. The author claimed the story of Varanasi Mosque was in a rare manuscript in Lucknow in possession of a “respected Mulla”. The respected Mullah had promised a friend of the author to hand over the Manuscript, but he “without fulfilling his promise”.
Now there are two points that need to be considered. First, Prof Ravi Kant himself said during the debate that there was no way to prove the story. However, he still used the derogatory and anti-Hindu story as an excuse against the Hindu devotees who wanted access to the mosque.
Secondly, the book he referred to cannot be seen as proof that the story is real or not. The author himself said he only heard this story. There is no mention of the alleged Manuscript anywhere in any documents available online except it is being mentioned by the left-liberal historian. A similar breakdown of the story was done by Dharma Dispatch in one of their articles. Sitaramayya’s book is often used as the “documentary” evidence of the story. The story was told to him by some “respected mullah”.
Now coming back to the book by Sitaramayya. The preface of the book reads, “This is a book which the author (amongst whose infirmities modesty is not one) may claim to be a book of humour, wit and wisdom. None of these is the original product of the author’s ‘genius’ for it only embodies what has been heard or read by him. If anyone looks to this publication for the originality of ideas, a rich imagination or a bright intellectual display, he is sure to be disappointed. Let no reader give a good name to the author and hang him for not living (or writing) up to readers’ expectation.”
Sitaramayya himself hinted that the stories he had written in the book were either heard or read. There was no documentary proof of anything he had written in the book. Yet, the left-liberal historians and the academicians use it as documentary proof.
