From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday warned the Uttarakhand government to take measures to prevent hate speeches at a Dharam Sansad planned at Roorkee on Wednesday, threatening to take action against the state’s chief secretary if any hatred spread from there.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay Sreeniwas Oka and CT Ravikumar was hearing an application filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate and former Patna HC judge Anjana Prakash, seekng criminal action against alleged hate speeches made during such meetings.
You will have to take immediate action. Don’t make us say something. There are other ways of preventive action. You know how to do it!”, Justice Khanwilkar told Deputy Advocate General of the State of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi.
Reminding the counsel of the Uttarakhand Government about the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Tehseen Poonawalla case regarding preventive measures, the Bench said it will hold Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and othe concerned officials if the hate speeches are allowed in Roorkee.
“Your Original petition was for Delhi and Uttarakhand. And now this IA is for HP?”, Justice Khanwilkar asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who has moved a fresh application on the Dharam Sansad held in Himachal Pradesh a week ago.
Sibal: “They Are holding dharm sansad at every other place from time to time. This was held in Una, Himachal Pradesh. This is very shocking. We had originally filed this IA to stop the Dharam Sansad. The court said you report to the district collector and the SP. They did nothing.”
Justice Khanwilkar: “Today, what are you asking for?” Sibal: “The gentleman who is speaking in the Dharam Sansad. Please read the transcript of his speech. I will not read it…..”
Noting that the Court has read it, Justice Khanwilkar said the top court’s guidelines are alrady in place. If the government is not following them, it has to take correctives.
He reminded the state counsel about the guidelines and on his assertion that Himachal Pradesh has taken preventive measures and statrted an investigation, Justice Khanwilkar: “You have to stop activity and not just do investigation. File an affidavit on what steps you have taken to prevent it and thereafter.”
“We have issued notice under the Section 64 of Himachal Pradesh Police act to ensure there is no such issue. Subsequent to this, a representation was received and we took action,” the counsel said.
Justice Khanwilkar: “These incidents don’t happen suddenly. They are announced well in advance. The local police has to get into action immediately. You file an affidavit explaining those steps. Did you sprint into action immediately or not?”
Sibal intervened to assert that nobody has been arrested. He also referred to another Dharam Sansad being held in Roorkee on Wednesday.
When Uttarakhand deputy advocate general said as and when the situation arises, FIR is registered irrespective of which community the person is from, Justice Khanwilkar: “Don’t explain but act as per the guidelines already in place. Sibal is informing you, perhaps it was not known to you.”
When Dy AG referred to FIRs registered earlier, Justice Khanwilkar said: “FIRs are after incident and not before.”
Dy AG of Uttarakhand explained the difficulty: “As Regards preventive measures, there is a difficulty. A person says he will hold Dharam Sansad, we don’t know the text of what he will be saying.”
Justice Khanwilkar: “If the speaker is going to be the same, you will have to take immediate action. Don’t make us say something. There are other ways of preventive action. You know how to do it.”
The Dy AG of Uttarakhand said: “We are also trying to persuade them not to hold the event. e are operating on a different channel that it is better if they don’t hold. My friend Sibal may have some trust on us. The incident that he is indicating may not even occur because of the steps that we are taking. Let us see whatever happens on Wednesday or Thursday. He (Sibal) filed an application late last night and it is not even on the board, but I took instructions immediately.”
Justice Khanwilkar: “There is no question of trust. Doctrine of trust applies all across and 24/7, but what we see is something different on the ground…We don’t want your assurance. This is not the way you handle matters like this. If it happens, we will ask the chief secretary to be present.”
