Hate Speeches Delivered By Political & Religious Leaders Bulldoze Constitutional Ethos, Warrant Stringent Peremptory Action
Case: Brinda Karat And Anr. V. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
Coram: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1624/2020
Court Observation: “The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society,”
“Hate speeches are almost invariably targeted towards a community to impart a psychological impact on their psyche, creating fear in the process. Hate speeches are the beginning point of attacks against the targeted community that can range from discrimination to ostracism, ghettoization, deportation, and, even to genocide,”
“The methodology is not restricted to any religion or community in specific. There have been and there continue to be instances of hate speeches in different parts of the country targeted against people of specific communities, based upon the demographic composition. There have even been instances of demographic shifts in the aftermath of such Hate/Inflammatory speeches, the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley is a prime example.”
“Hate speeches not only cause defamation but also incite offences against a particular sect of religion of this nation,”
“Effective regulation of “hate speeches” at all levels is required and all the law enforcing agencies must ensure that the existing law is not rendered a dead letter. Enforcement of the aforesaid provisions is required being in consonance with the proposition “salus reipublicae suprema lex”
“If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and could issue process to the accused,”
“In light of the aforesaid, it is settled law that the power to issue writ has its own well-defined limitations imposed by the High Courts, one of which is the availability of alternative efficacious remedy. Considering the law laid down by the judicial precedents, the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure and as well as the fact that alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner which is yet to be exhausted, this Court is also of the opinion that the High Court should not ordinarily, as a matter of routine, exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction underArticle226of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available,”
“The provisions of Section 156(3) for directing investigation qua offences mentioned in Section 196 of the Code cannot be exercised by the Court without sanction. There is no prima facie irregularity that is apparent upon a perusal of the impugned order. Fourthly, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the Court and no case is made out warranting the intervention of this Court at this stage,”
Previous Posts
Balance Sheets Entries Can Amount To Acknowledgement Of Debt U/s 18 Limitation Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Full Bench Ruling Download Judgement
