The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police to submit its final report, along with a copy of the charge sheet filed in connection with the hate speech delivered during a Hindu Yuva Vahini event organised in Delhi last year.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, after noting that the voice sample reports from the Forensic Lab were not ready, told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, who appeared for Delhi Police, to submit a copy of the charge sheet before this court.

The Apex Court further took note of the fact that trial was currently in advanced stage and listed the matter for further hearing in the first week of April.   

The top court of the country was hearing a contempt petition filed by activist Tushar Gandhi, alleging that Delhi Police had violated the directions issued in the Tehseen Poonawalla case regarding investigation of mob violence cases.

The petition sought contempt of court proceedings against Delhi Police in connection with inflammatory speeches made during the Dharam Sansad event organised under the leadership of Sudarshan News TV editor Suresh Chavhanke in December, 2022.

On January 30, the Delhi Police had apprised the Supreme Court that it would soon file its final report in the hate speech case.  

ASG Nataraj told the Apex Court that the investigation was substantially completed. The final report, which was almost ready, had been sent for vetting and would be filed in the shortest time, he added.

After taking note of the ASG’s submissions and recording the same, the top court of the country had adjourned the hearing for three weeks.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Shadan Farasat said that he had no objection to the adjournment, but that the Delhi Police should clarify certain additional aspects.

Farasat contended that as per the Delhi Police affidavit, they had fixed March 17 for collecting the voice sample of the accused. The same should be done expeditiously and should not take so long.

The Counsel further sought an affidavit regarding preventive steps in order to avoid repetition of such incidents in future.

The ASG said that he would take instructions on the same.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the Apex Court to tag the hate speech case against Sudarshan TV’s UPSC Jihad programme with the ongoing matter, stating that the matter was connected to the present case.

Advocate Farasat opposed the tagging, stating that the contempt petition was regarding a different incident related to the UPSC ‘jihad’ programme and was tagged with a batch of petitions listed before the Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph.

The court then said that it would look into the matter.

In November 2020, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the UPSC Jihad programme aired by Sudarshan TV was ‘not’ in good taste and had a likelihood to ‘promote’ communal attitudes.

It further cautioned the channel owned by Suresh Chavhanke to remain ‘careful’ in future.

Earlier on January 13, the top court of the country had pulled up the Delhi Police over slow progress in the investigation in the case. It further came down heavily on Delhi Police for taking five months to register an FIR and not making any arrests in the case.

Initially, the Delhi Police had stated that the speeches made during the Hindu Yuva Vahini event did not amount to any offence.

Submitting an affidavit before the Apex Court in another petition seeking action against hate speech crimes, the Delhi Police had said that no hate speech was given against any community at the event.

The top court of the country flayed Delhi Police over the statement and directed a senior officer to file a fresh affidavit in the case. Delhi Police then registered an FIR in the case in May, 2022.

(Case Title: Tushar Gandhi vs Rakesh Asthana And Anr)

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Uttarakhand Government and the Government of NCT of Delhi to file affidavits explaining the factual position and action taken by them related to hate speeches made during the Dharam Sansad (religious congregation) in Uttarakhand and during a similar event event organised by Hindu Yuva Vahini in Delhi.

The Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli refused to issue notice and adjourned the matter for four weeks, after observing that Attorney General R. Venkataramani took charge of the office on October 1, 2022 and needed time to go through the contempt petition.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Shadan Farasat told the Court that he would serve a copy of the contempt petition to the Advocate assisting the AG.

The Apex Court also gave liberty to the state governments concerned, to be provided with a copy of the petition.

Citing the July 17, 2018 order of the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India case, wherein guidelines were laid down regarding preventive, punitive, and remedial measures to be taken with respect to mob lynching, Farasat alleged that police of the concerned States (Uttarakhand and Delhi) did not take any action.

The Counsel noted that the present contempt petition dealt with hate speeches made during the three-day conclave, Dharam Sansad (religious congregation) held in Haridwar from December 17 to 19, 2021 and an event organised in Delhi held on December 19 last year by members of the Hindu Yuva Vahini.

The speeches delivered during the two events were explicitly hateful and in the nature of calling for mass extermination of a minority community, amounted to genocidal hate speech, noted Farasat.

Alleging that the concerned State Police did not abide by the SC guidelines given in the Tehseen Poonawalla verdict, he said that out of nine people who made hate speeches at these events, only two were arrested, while the remaining seven were left without being proceeded against.

As per the plea, the hate speeches were made publicly available immediately after the events. However, the Uttarakhand police took four days to register an FIR, that too against only one person, while there were at least seven others, who had called for genocide of a minority community at the Haridwar event, it added.

Farasat said the names of Annapurna Maa, Dharamdas, Sagar Sidhu Maharaj and Yati Narsinghanand Giri were added to the FIR later, after public outrage.

The lawyer pointed out that on January 2 this year, another FIR was registered against Yati Narsinghanand Giri, Sindhu Sagar, Dharamdas, Parmananda, Sadhvi Annapurna, Anand Swaroop, Ashwini Upadhyay, Suresh Chahwan, Prabodhanand Giri and Jitendra Narayan Tyagi under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC.
He said the nature of the hate speech was grave enough to attract 121A 124A, Sections 15 & 16 of the UAPA read with Section 120B of IPC along with Sections 153B, 295A, 298, 505 and 506 of IPC.

As per Farasat, this contempt petition was filed on somewhere around January 6, 2022, and the Delhi Police was yet to cognisance of the hate speeches unapologetically made at the event organised by the Hindu Yuva Vahini.

Case title: Tushar Gandhi vs Ashok Kumar Contempt petition 41/2022

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the government of Uttarakhand on the bail application filed by Jitendra Tyagi (formerly known as Waseem Rizvi), arrested in connection with investigation into the hate speeches delivered at the Hardiwar Dharam Sansad, held in December, 2021.

A Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath observed that such speeches were spoiling the atmosphere.

Urging the people to live together harmoniously, the Court said, “Stay together peacefully, enjoy life.”

Tyagi, former Chairperson of Shia Waqf Board, who recently converted to Hinduism, was arrested by the Uttarakhand Police in January, 2022 for his inflammatory speech at Haridwar in December last year.

He approached the Supreme Court after the Uttarakhand High Court rejected his bail plea in March this year.

When the matter came up for hearing today, the top court sought to know what a ‘Dharam Sansad’ was.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Tyagi, informed the Court that since he (Luthra) was a follower of Arya Samaj, he could only guess from the videos of the event and as per the same, people wearing bhagwa (saffron) clothes were giving speeches.

Luthra said that people of the nation need to be sensitised.

However, the Bench said that such speakers have to be sensitised first, so that they don’t spoil the atmosphere.

Luthra informed the Court that Tyagi had been in custody for almost six months and that he suffered from medical ailments.

The complainant’s Counsel opposed the application, stating that Tyagi was trying to send out a message that he was not afraid of the law.

After briefly hearing the matter, the Bench sought reply from the State of Uttarakhand on the matter and fixed May 17 as the next date of hearing.

The hearing in bail petition of Wasim Rizvi alias Jitendra Narayan Tyagi, accused of delivering hate speech during a Dharam Sansad in Haridwar last year, could not take place in the Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday, as the Judge hearing the matter was on leave.

Rizvi was arrested by Uttarakhand Police on January 13, 2022, for allegedly making provocative statements against Muslims at a ‘Dharam Sansad (religious conclave) held in Haridwar from December 17 to 19, 2021.

The former chief of Shia Waqf Board who recently converted to Hinduism, was booked along with Yati Narsinghanand Giri, seers Dharamdas and Sadhvi Annapurna, and others, under IPC Section 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), among other sections, for their alleged hate speeches at the Dharam Sansad.

Also Read: Supreme Court decides on dispute related to regularization of part time workers in LIC

Giri, the controversial priest of Dasna temple in Ghaziabad, had organised the religious conclave.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to place on record the corrective measures taken by the authorities, as and when required, to deal with the Dharam Sansad,  scheduled to be organised in Roorkee on Wednesday.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that Dharam Sansads (religious congregation) are being held in different places across the country. An application has been filed by them to stop these sansads altogether but the collectors and ASPs are doing nothing. The last Sansad was held in Una, Himachal pradesh. Application filed in the WP is in relation to the event which has already taken place from April 17-19 in Una.

Justice Khanwilkar observed that there are guidelines in place for imposing preventive and corrective measures.

Counsel for the state of Himachal Pradesh said, “We have taken all the preventive measures and the dharam sansad in the state of HP are over. We had also issued notice under Section 64 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007, which states that all persons are bound to comply with the reasonable directions of the police officer.

The Counsel also contended that all the necessary preventive steps were taken before the dharam sansad in Una and after the event all the directive steps were taken. He sought time to place an affidavit on record detailing the preventive, corrective and directive steps taken by the state with regard to the sansad at una.

Also Read: Supreme Court directs senior police officer to undertake probe into Unnao custodial death case

Khanwilkar said, “These kinds of events don’t occur overnight. The police force has to take action immediately.”

Sibal cited the Tehseen s. Poonawalla vs UOI (2018) in which the Apex Court laid down the preventive measures, remedial measures and punitive measures to ensure that machinery of law and order functions efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to preserve our quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law.

Sibal informed the court that a Dharam Sansads is going to take place at Roorkee tomorrow.

Counsel for the state of Uttarakhand Submitted that they take immediate action against any community that violates the law and disturbs the peace.

He also submitted that he has taken instructions from the CO

Justice Khanwilkar – you need to take instructions from the chief secretary of the state and the IG. Since you are so confident that all preventive measures will be taken, we will record your statement and all these authorities will be held liable.

Also Read: Supreme Court directs senior police officer to undertake probe into Unnao custodial death case

The Court reprimanded the counsel for placing forth  arguments with immense confidence without proper instructions from authorities and without showing what preventive and corrective measures are being taken by the state with regard to the sansad in roorkee tomorrow

The Bench said, “This is an application with respect to Dharam Sansad,  which took place on April 17-19, 2022 in Himachal. 

“Counsel for the State of HP submits that necessary preventive measures were taken and after the event, corrective steps as required in terms of the decision of this court have also been taken by the concerned authorities.

“He prays for some time to place the same on record by way of affidavit. We direct the affidavit of Sec Home Department to be filed in that regard on or before May 7.

“List this on May 9 along with other connected matters,” it added.

During the course of the hearing, Sibal has pointed out that he has instructions to say that an event has been planned at Roorkee of the same kind for tomorrow and an application has been filed in the registry in course of the day.

Also Read: Hijab Case: Supreme Court agrees to list appeal in two days

Counsel for the state of UK submits that all preventive measures have been taken as exposited in above decisions and the concerned authorities are more than confident that no untoward situation or unacceptable state is made during such event…whatever is necessary for terms of the decision of this court, all steps will be taken. We direct the Chief Secretary of the UK to place the above position on record and to state the corrective measure taken by the authorities as and when required, noted the Court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the state of Uttarakhand regarding the hate speeches delivered during the Dharam Sansad held in Haridwar last year.

A Bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Abhay S. Oka passed the order on a petition filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate (former judge of Patna High Court)) Anjana Prakash in January.

The state government was given time till April 22 by the apex court to file a status report in the religious event.

The Counsel representing the Uttarakhand government apprised the court that out of four first information reports (FIRs), charge sheets have been filed in three cases.

After the petitioners told the court that the next event on Dharam Sansad was scheduled to be held in Himachal Pradesh on Sunday, the Apex Court gave them liberty to intimate the Collector and the Superintendent of Police of area about the event.

Also Read: Supreme Court objects to transfer of state disaster funds to personal accounts by Andhra Pradesh government

The petitioners further filed an application to make Himachal Pradesh a party to the case.

The speeches made at the Dharam Sansad during December 17 to 19, 2021, led to huge outrage after several videos of leaders at the religious congregation emerged on social media.

Police filed an FIR naming several Hindu leaders for allegedly making hate speeches.

Days after the event, five former chiefs of the armed forces and more than 100 prominent citizens wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, criticising the remarks.

One of the speakers at the event allegedly passed an objectionable comment against former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Also Read:

• Threatening Karnataka HC judges over hijab verdict: Supreme Court issues notice in plea by accused
• Supreme Court issues notice to Uttarakhand government on hate speeches delivered in Dharam Sansad, Haridwar
• Franchisee schools: Delhi HC adjourns petition seeking a probe into pacts between educational societies, schools
• Delhi High Court grants bail to 8 men involved in the attack on Arvind Kejriwal’s official residence
• Urgent listing granted to Nawab Malik in plea against ED: Supreme Court