SC directs District Magistrates to take appropriate steps to prevent any hate speech or incitement to violence at rallies planned by BJP leader T. Raja Singh
On January 17, 2024 (Wednesday), the Supreme Court (SC) directed the District Magistrates in Maharashtra’s Yavatmal and Chhattisgarh’s Raipur to take appropriate steps to prevent any hate speech or incitement to violence at rallies planned by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader T. Raja Singh later this week. The rallies were planned on January 18, 2024, by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and from January 19, 2024, to January 25, 2024, by BJP Leader T. Raja Singh. Moreover, the bench consisting of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta asked the Police to install CCTV cameras, if necessary, at the locations so that perpetrators can be identified if any unexpected event happens. Yesterday (January 17), the SC was hearing an interlocutory application seeking directions to the authorities to refuse permission for rallies which also include transcripts of certain speeches made by T. Raja Singh and organizations inciting hatred against the Muslim community.
During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who appeared on behalf of applicant Shaheen Abdullah stated that no action was taken against T. Raja who was involved in controversy for his provocative speeches. SA said, “When the event takes place, we come to this court, and an FIR is lodged. But nothing is done. Then he continues with this kind of speeches. What is the point of all this then? See the kind of hatred he is propagating!” Hearing this, Justice Khanna remarked “This court has already issued directions, including regarding CCTV cameras. As far as processions are concerned…We are not going to stop that. If there’s any hate speech or incitement to violence, we will take action. But we cannot preempt that.”
Following this, Justice Datta said, “Is he a party? Your request, if granted, will affect someone. Your prayer is to ensure that permission is not granted to X or withdraw permission if already granted? How can we pass this order without this person being a party or hearing them? This goes against the fundamental principles of natural justice.” The order of the SC reads, “It is to be noted that persons against whom allegations have been made have not been impleaded as parties. Nevertheless in view of the assertions made, we require the authorities to be cautions of the fact that no incitement to violence or hate speech can be permitted. We accordingly direct the district magistrate of Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh to take notice of the allegations and take appropriate steps as may be advised and required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, the police will install CCTV cameras with recording facilities so that perpetrators can be identified if any event happens.”
SA Sibal replied at the end, “This will happen again and again unless Your Lordships intervene.” To this, Justice Khanna said “We have passed orders. In one case, we had passed orders and it did stop. That is the positive part. Why only look at the negative aspect?” Apart from this, the bench also sought the State Government's response on the status of their compliance with the guidelines requiring the establishment of district-level nodal officers. The bench noted that Andhra Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, UT of Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh are the states which informed that they appointed nodal officers. Moreover, the SC issued notice to the states that have not appointed nodal officers including Kerala, Gujarat, and Nagaland
