SC notice to Centre on genocide advocates : 'The petitioners can approach local authorities'

The Supreme Court of India

R. Balaji   |   TT  |  New Delhi   |  13.01.22: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Centre, Delhi police and the Uttarakhand government on their alleged failure to act against people who had purportedly called for genocide against Muslims at events in Haridwar and Delhi last month.

“Heard Mr Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Issue notice to the respondents. List the matter after 10 days,” a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said.

Sibal said more such events were being planned at places like Aligarh, Una, Dasna and Kurukshetra, with similar inflammatory speeches likely to be delivered — especially in the run-up to the Uttar Pradesh elections.

If so, the bench said, the petitioners can approach the local authorities. 

The two joint petitioners are Anjana Prakash, former Allahabad High Court judge and currently a senior lawyer, and journalist Qurban Ali.

At the December 17-19 Dharma Sansad in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, sadhus were caught on video urging Hindus to take up sophisticated weapons and kill Muslims to create a Hindu Rashtra.

Videos from the Delhi event held by the Hindu Yuva Vahini — a militia founded by Yogi Adityanath two decades ago — purportedly show youths taking a pledge to “fight, die and kill” to establish a Hindu Rashtra.

On Monday, the bench, which included Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, had agreed to hear the petition urgently after Sibal said that FIRs had been filed but no action taken, with not a single arrest made.

During Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocate Indira Jaising sought to intervene on behalf of Tushar Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, contending that an earlier petition by Tushar Gandhi had led the court to pass certain directives to prevent lynchings.

Sibal, however, contended that the present petition concerned genocide calls against one particular community and was therefore different from the earlier matter, which was related to lynchings in different parts of the country in general.

Justice Ramana too highlighted that the anti-lynching directions had been passed by another bench, headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. He said the present petition might be tagged on with the earlier one at a later stage, if necessary.