The Patiala House Court in Delhi today granted bail to Alt News cofounder Mohammad Zubair in a case filled for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments through a tweet some years ago. However, the comments made by the court in the bail order shows the huge difference how the judicial system treats similar complaints by Hindus and Muslims. The court today said that Hindus must be tolerant, a view not expressed by the Supreme Court just weeks ago in a similar case.
While the case against Zubair is regarding a social media post defaming Hinduism, the court brought his anti-government views in the matter, implying that he has been arrested for his political stand, not for the Hinduphobic posts. “The voice of dissent is necessary for healthy democracy. Therefore, merely for the criticism of any political parties it is not justified to invoke section 153A and 295A IPC,” a shocking statement because no criticism of any political party has been invoked in the FIR against Zubair.
The court termed the case as a freedom of speech case, it said that “free speech is the proper foundation of a democratic society.” With this, the court virtually ruled that defamation of Hinduism comes under free speech, even when a trial court is yet to decide whether Zubair’s posts defamed Hinduism or not. While it was only a bail hearing, the Patiala House Court gave the verdict in the merit of the case itself by saying that it is a matter of freedom of speech.
Most shocking was the court’s comment on Hinduism, as the court gave the sermon that Hindus must be ‘tolerant’ and should not object to others insulting Hindu gods and should not use the legal recourse against such insults. The court said, “Hindu religion is one of the oldest religion and most tolerant. The followers of the Hindu religion are also tolerant. Hindu religion is so tolerant that followers proudly names institution/organization/facilities in the name of their Holy God or Goddess.”
Rejecting the allegation against Zubair, the court further said that he committed no offence as Hindus use Gods of Hindus to name persons, organisations etc, and that is considered acceptable. “Naming of an Institute, Facility or Organization or child in the name of Hindu Deity on the face of it, is not violative of Section 153A and 295A IPC unless the same is done with malice/guilty intention,” the court said, virtually ruling that Zubair’s ‘Honeymoon hotel’ tweet was not done with malice, and he is not guilty.
However, it is notable that there is no god named Honeymoon in Hinduism, and the image that Zubair had posted showed the name Hanuman changed to Honeymoon. Although the image was taken from an old Hindi movie, the prosecution has argued that the intent of the comedy movie and the post by Zubair were not same. The FIR says that the words and the picture used by Zubair against a particular religious community were highly provocative and more than sufficient to incite feeling of hatred amongst people which can be detrimental for maintenance of public tranquillity in the society.
While an appropriate court will determine whether Zubair insulted Hinduism or not after a due trial, the comments on Hinduism by the Patiala House Court comes in stark contrast of what the Supreme Court had commented on former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The court had virtually held her guilty of insulting Islam and had justified violence by Islamists in response to her comments on Prophet Mohammad.
As multiple FIRs have been filed against Nupur Sharma in numerous police stations in several states, she had approached the supreme court to club all the FIRs and transfer them to Delhi. This a standard legal benefit usually granted when multiple FIRs are filed in the same case, and the Supreme Court itself has ruled in a landmark verdict that multiple FIRs can’t be registered for the same offence.
But not only the Supreme Court bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala rejected this simple plea, they had gone on the make unprecedented comments against the petitioner on matters which were not even subject of the plea. While Nupur Sharma had mentioned some facts which are mentioned in Islamic texts and have been confirmed by several Islamic clerics, the court had blamed her ‘loose tongue’ for the violence by Islamists across the country, including the murder of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amaravati.
The Supreme Court had said that Nupur Sharma has set the entire country on fire and she should apologise to the whole country. Blaming Nupur Sharma for the chaos unleashed by the Islamists and the regressive ideas that ambiguously declare any criticism of the Islamic prophet as ‘blasphemy’, the apex court of the country had surprisingly ignored the hatred and violence unleashed by Islamists and has instead blamed the woman who had stated merely what is written in Islamic hadiths, and affirmed by Islamic scholars all over the world.
By the comments on Nupur Sharma, the apex court of the country had virtually ruled that any comment on Islam that is considered blasphemy by Islamists is not acceptable, and any person making such person must apologise. The Supreme Court had also justified violence and murders by radical Islamists over alleged ‘blasphemy’, adding fuel to the ‘sar tan se juda’ slogans across the country. The Supreme Court never said that Muslims should be tolerant, motivating them to remain radicals.
But the Patiala House Court thinks differently about Hinduism, by saying that Hindus must be tolerant because they have been tolerant for centuries. The views of both courts essentially reflect the prevalent viewpoint of left-liberal establishment, which is that it is ok to insult Hinduism but is not ok to even make even a factual comment on Islam.
