Delhi police approached the Supreme Court today informing them that after analyzing some videos and links on social media , they have come to a conclusion that FIR should be registered for promoting animosity between the groups.
It seemed like a U –turn taken by the Delhi Police who had earlier said that there was “no specific words against any community uttered” at by the Hindu Yuva Vahini last year
Delhi Police has filed a new affidavit stating that every link or detail that was available in public access was minutely observed and analysed before they concluded on the next step to follow .
The police said that one video which was on youtube channel had clear audio and video description which after minute verification led the Okhla police station register the FIR under section 153A, 295A, 298 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The top court in the last hearing had said that police should file a better affidavit, more clear and better description.
The affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police this time with all due care taken to review every evidence, piece of information before submission
The bench had Justice A M Khanwilkar said “We hope he has understood the nuances”
The top court questioned as to who verified the affidavit before placing it before the court, accepting the error and now doing correct finding.
ASG K M Nataraj, who appeared for the Delhi Police, said he will relook the matter and refile a fresh affidavit.
The top court has been hearing a petition filed by journalist Qurban Ali and former Patna High Court judge and senior advocate Anjana Prakash, who have been demanding for an independent and impartial investigation by SIT in case of hate speech
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was from the side of petitioner had drawn the attention of court towards some hate speech extracts along with enquiry report by the SI Okhla.
The top court wanted to know if the Delhi Police was accepting it as a correct finding.
In a counter-affidavit filed in the apex court, the Delhi Police complained that the petitioners have not approached them and directly moved to court and this practice should not be promoted.