Hate Speech Case: Supreme Court issue notice on Brinda Karat’s Plea against two BJP leaders

Today, the Supreme Court of India was hearing the matter related to the hate speech involving Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) leader Brinda Karat and BJP leaders Parvesh Verma and Anurag Thakur. The bench, Justice BV Nagarathna, and Justice KM Joseph issued a notice on a petition filed by Brinda Karat against the registration of an FIR against two BJP leaders for delivering hate speeches in 2020. In a plea filed by Karat different speeches made by the two politicians were highlighted including a speech delivered by Anurag Thakur on 27 January 2020  and by Parvesh Verma on 27-28 January 2020. Anurag Thakur in his rally was shouting the slogan “desh ke gaddaronko, goli maaron salon ko”. Due to this, after a few days a person fired at the protesters.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for CPI(M) leader submitted that “This is an election rally. It refers to a dharna at Shaheenbagh by the members of a particular community and the exhortation of ‘traitors’ was in the context of that particular group.” To this, Justice Joseph replied that “Protest group is secular.” In response, the Senior Advocate opined that “The issue was raised in the context of CAA. The basis of somebody believing CAA is not right was on the ground of religion. Though the protest group is secular, the underlying context is religious segregation…Let’s assume it is not communal statement. But if the statement is that those oppose CAA are traitors, it will be under 153A.” 

Justice Joseph further asked, “If any person makes a statement ‘goli maaro’, will it be an offence for anyone to say to kill the traitors irrespective of religion. Will it be a cognizable offence in its own right? Indian Penal Code allows violence only in private defence. If you say that ‘goli maaro’, irrespective of 153A, are there other provisions?” In response, Agarwal stated “Even if it is not 153A or 153B, if the exhortation is an instigation, and even if the instigation does not lead to final act-though on the next day one gentlemen picks up a gun and shoots at the crown. It will be an offence. It requires investigation, whether the statement is communal, what are the overtones etc…for 3 years there has been no investigation.” The plea alleged that the speech promote hatred and enmity against Muslim persons and portray them as invaders. Also, the speech threatened to remove the protestors, protesting in the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Also Read: Legal News