The Sakal Hindu Samaj rally to be videographed for checking hate speech
The Maharashtra government agreed with the Supreme Court on Friday that it would allow Sakal Hindu Samaj to have its scheduled rally on February 5, subject to the group guaranteeing that neither the organisers nor attendees would use hate speech, violate the law, or disrupt the peace.
Hindutva organisations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, and Sanatan Sanstha are included under the Sakal Hindu Samaj’s umbrella. In the past several weeks, it has participated in several right-wing organisations’ protests across the state.
The rallies held on January 29 started at Shivaji Park in Dadar and finished at Kamgar Maidan in Parel.
Gopal Shetty, Manoj Kotak, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Nitesh Rane, Pravin Darekar, and former MP Kirit Somaiya were among the senior BJP leaders who were present. Samadhan Sarvankar, the son of Sada Sarvankar, a member of Eknath Shinde’s faction, also participated.
Read More- Opposition on Adani: Centre using Common man’s money to aid Adani
When a plea to stop the upcoming meeting was filed with the court, a two-judge bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and J.B. Pardiwala heard the case. Shaheen Abdullah, the petitioner, said that the organisers of a similar event organised by the same Hindutva group in Mumbai on January 29 shouted anti-Muslim hate statements. His petition expressed concern that the group’s approval of the scheduled event might lead to further hate speech.
The Supreme Court on Friday recorded the undertaking made by the State of Maharashtra that if permission is granted for Sakal Hindu Samaj for holding its proposed meeting on February 5, it will be subject to the condition…
Read more: https://t.co/yrwHQZktt2 pic.twitter.com/7CbCpgAonu— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 3, 2023
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, requested the court to apply Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows police to detain people to prevent any lawful offence against the organisers. Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general’s counsel for Maharashtra, disagreed with the petitioner’s argument.
At this stage, the court said, “We also direct that the officers, in case of permission, are granted and in case the occasion arises for invoking power under Section 151, it shall be the duty of the officers concerned to invoke the mandate of Section 151.”
The court also agreed with Sibal’s request that the proceedings be videotaped and that a report be given to the court. The local police inspector has ordered this for the region where the event will occur.
The court further ordered the solicitor general, Mehta, to ask the state government for information on the claims made by the petitioner regarding the incident on January 29.
Mehta objected to the petitioner hailing from Kerala and questioned his motivations for requesting a ban on a Maharashtra event. In addition, he charged that the petitioner was “selectively” pursuing causes under the guise of being “public-spirited”.
The SG stated that the request for a ban on the event because of the possibility of hate speech amounted to “pre-speech censorship” while recording the Maharashtra government’s commitment before the court.
Sibal responded on behalf of the petitioner by stating that before giving permission, “grave statements” made by speakers at the previous meeting must be taken into account. Sibal claimed that the last meeting also included the ruling party’s parliamentarian (MP). According to the petitioner, the speakers demanded a social and commercial boycott against Muslims.
The government’s legal representative disputed Sibal’s claim. Mehta questioned the need to use Section 151, stating that the petitioners wanted a pre-speech arrest and pre-speech censorship.
Mehta supported the court’s decision to record the event, saying that “pre-judging” a speech was improper, but added that “ideally the public-spirited individuals should record, who come selectively and exploit this court’s jurisdiction.”
Justice Joseph responded by asking Mehta, “Undertake you believe petitioners would be allowed to do videography?”
Liked this post?
Register at One World News to never miss out on videos, celeb interviews, and best reads.
