3 min readNew DelhiJan 18, 2024 03:48 AM IST
First published on: Jan 18, 2024 at 03:48 AM IST
The Supreme Court Wednesday declined to stop upcoming public rallies by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and BJP MLA T Raja Singh in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh respectively, but directed authorities in each state to take appropriate steps to ensure that no hate speech is made at the events.
Taking note of apprehensions expressed regarding the events in an interlocutory application, a Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta asked the district magistrates of Yavatmal in Maharashtra and Raipur in Chhattisgarh to take requisite steps and to install CCTV cameras to record the events, if needed.
The court, however, refused to stop the events and pointed out that the applicant had not made the person or group whose rally was being objected to a party to his petition.
The Bench said in its order, “It is to be noted that persons against whom allegations have been made have not been impleaded as parties. Nevertheless, in view of the assertions made, we require the authorities to be cautious of the fact that no incitement to violence or hate speech can be permitted. We accordingly direct the district magistrate of Yavatmal and Raipur to take notice of allegations and take appropriate steps as may be advised and required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, the police will install CCTV cameras with recording facilities so that perpetrators can be identified if any event happens.”
The plea alleged that the Samiti “has been actively involved in organising events where speeches are delivered openly demonising Muslims and calling for their boycott”. It said the outfit is organising three events on January 18 in Yavatmal, while Singh “is also going to hold a series of rallies in Chattisgarh from January 19 to January 25”.
Appearing for the applicant, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the lodging of FIRs was not deterring Singh from continuing to deliver objectionable speeches.
“When the event takes place, we come to this court and an FIR is lodged. But nothing is done. Then he continues with this kind of speech. What is the point of all this then?” he said. Referring to some of the speeches by the legislator, Sibal added, “See the kind of hatred he is propagating.”
Justice Khanna said he had gone through the speeches and added, “Certainly objectionable.”
However the court said it cannot preempt that a speech may be objectionable and stop it.
“Is he a party? Your request, if granted, will affect someone. Your prayer is to ensure that permission is not granted or withdraw permission if already granted. How can we pass this order without this person being a party or hearing them? This goes against the fundamental principles of natural justice” said Justice Datta.
Sbial said it “will happen again and again unless Your Lordships intervene”.
Justice Khanna pointed out that the court had intervened and passed orders. “In one case, we had passed orders and it did stop. That is the positive part. Why only look at the negative aspect?” he asked.
The Bench said in its order, “It is to be noted that persons against whom allegations have been made have not been impleaded as parties. 
Share
