On October 10, the Supreme Court of India heard a petition about “hate speech”. It was not talking about hate speech of Islamists against Hindus. According to the petition, death of young actor Sushant Singh Rajput and the film “The Kashmir Files” have something in common. A conspiracy. Conspiracy to convert India into a “Hindu Rashtra” by 2024.
One Harpreet Sehgal Mansukhani has filed the bizarre petition. She has cited 72 alleged cases of hate speech in her petition. Harpreet appeared in person to present her case. She has listed 42 respondents including PM Modi, Home minster Amit Shah, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Union Government in her petition.
Mansukhani is a Yoga teacher in Sharjah. According to her Muslims are targets of these “hate speeches”. Moreover, according to her the movie “The Kashmir Files” and “RSS anthem” are hate speeches. Not only Muslims, but teachers, soldiers, actors and journalists are the targets of these “hate speeches”.
A two judge bench of CJI U.U.Lalit and Justice S.Ravindra Bhat was hearing the petition. There was a touch of melodrama in the court as the petitioner “started crying” while presenting her case. She claimed, “Every time a hate speech is given, it is like an arrow which never returns”.
Surprisingly, the petitioner made no reference to numerous instances of hate speech against Hindus. No reference to vandalisation of Hindu idols, murders of Hindu activists. Or to political leaders spewing venom against Hindus, Modi or Yogi.
Random petition based on Vague assertions: CJI
After going through the petition, CJI commented,”For a court to take cognisance of this we need factual background. Otherwise it is a random petition.”
We don’t even know what are the details of those particular crimes, what is the status, what is your say, who are the persons involved, whether any crime was registered, not registered, etc. You may be right, perhaps, in saying that the entire atmosphere is being sullied as a result of hate speeches. Perhaps you have every justifiable grounds to say that this needs to be curbed, but this kind of omnibus petition cannot be entertained.
CJI UU Lalit
CJI further said that the plea did not contain any specific instances or information. According to the bench, the petition is based on vague assertions. The CJI wondered if the petitioner required an amicus curiae.
The bench further observed that if there are cases of hate speech, then normal proceedings are sufficient on a case-to-case basis. A court of law needs specific cases to proceed.
The bench has asked Mansukhani to submit some specific and immediate cases to the court. In response the petitioner has agreed to submit specific instances in an affidavit. The court has listed the case for November 1.
It is interesting to note that petitioner does not talk of hate speeches against Hindus. As if, she failed to notice numerous Muslim leaders calling for beheadings of Hindus. Muslim crowds have been chanting “Sar tan se Juda” openly on the streets.
Let us see if she comes up with instances of hate speech against Hindus, as well.
