Permission for Hindu outfit’s meet in Mumbai will be given on condition that no hate speech is made, SC told

“We record the submission of the Solicitor General that if permission is applied for Sakal Hindu Samaj for holding the meeting contemplated on February 5, it will be considered, and if permission is granted, it will be subject to the condition that nobody will make any hate speech and act in defiance of law or disturb the public order,” the bench said in its order.

The court was hearing a petition by Shaheen Abdullah, who hails from Kerala, seeking a ban on the proposed meeting on the ground that anti-Muslim speeches were delivered at a similar event organised by the Samaj on January 29 in Maharashtra.

The bench accepted petitioner’s counsel Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s submission that police should invoke powers under Section 151 of CrPC if necessary. The provision says that a police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.

The Solicitor General opposed the prayer regarding Section 151 and said the state has the entire gamut of laws under its power and not just Section 151.

Sibal also wanted the event to be videographed. The bench accepted this and directed that it should be videographed by the Sub Inspector of Police in whose jurisdiction it is held and the recording be made available to the court on the next date of hearing.

The court also asked the Solicitor General to take instructions in regard to the allegations made about the contents of the January 29 meeting.

The Solicitor General questioned the petitioner’s selective approach in filing PILs and said the court’s forum is being misused.

“Your lordships have the judgment in the Tehseen Poonawala case [in which the SC laid down what needs to be done to prevent instances of mob violence etc]. Now selectively people are approaching your lordships and asking for banning one meeting in Uttarakhand, in Madhya Pradesh, in Maharashtra on etc,” he said. “Would your lordships be converting this honourable court’s August forum being the constitutional court of the country, as some kind of authority giving permissions for meetings?”

Apparently referring to the petitioner, he also asked what someone from Kerala had to do with a meeting in Maharashtra. “You said it, because we are the only constitutional forum,” responded Justice Joseph. Mehta said he, too, had many things to say and added “but again that does not justify people coming selectively”.