No scope for hate crimes on foundation of faith in secular nation akin to India: Supreme Court

PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday noticed that there’s a rising consensus round hate speech and burdened there isn’t a scope for hate crimes on the idea of faith in a secular nation akin to India.

“There cannot be any compromise on hate speech at all,” the highest courtroom stated and added that it is just if the State acknowledges the issue of hate speech {that a} answer might be discovered.

It additionally stated that it’s the main responsibility of the State to guard its residents from any such hate crimes.

A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated, “When action is not taken against hate crimes then an atmosphere is fostered which is very dangerous and it has to be rooted out from our lives. There cannot be any compromise on hate speech at all.”

The prime courtroom was listening to a plea of a Muslim man who has alleged that he was assaulted and abused within the identify of faith on July 4, 2021, by a “screwdriver gang” of criminals as he had boarded a automotive to go to Aligarh from Noida, and that the police has not bothered to register any criticism of hate crime.

The bench advised Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, showing for the Uttar Pradesh authorities, that, “Nowadays there is a growing consensus around hate speech. There is no scope for hate crimes in the name of religion in a secular country like India. It has to be rooted out and it is the primary duty of the state to protect its citizens from any such crimes. If a person comes to the police and says that I was wearing a cap and my beard was pulled and abused in the name of religion and still no complaint is registered, then it is a problem,” it stated.

Justice Joseph stated motion of each state officer augments respect for the regulation.

Otherwise, everybody will take the regulation into their very own fingers, he stated.

ALSO READ | ‘Ideology of hate’ consuming India, says Gandhi’s great-grandson

The bench, which sat until 6 pm listening to the matter, stated, “Will you not acknowledge that there is a hate crime and you will sweep it under the carpet? We are not saying anything adverse. We are only expressing our anguish. That is all.”

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, showing for the petitioner Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, stated it was on January 13 that this courtroom had requested the state authorities to supply the case diary that police had registered the FIR after two years and that too with all bailable offences barring one.

Nataraj conceded that there have been lapses on a part of police officers and stated {that a} particular investigation group has been constituted headed by an ACP-rank officer and disciplinary motion has been taken in opposition to erring police officers.

The bench stated, “You set an example and let such people face consequences for dereliction of duty. It is only when you take action against such incidents that we will come at par with developed nations. Yes, there has been clear lapse and there is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake”.

Nataraj stated that on July 4, 2021, when the alleged incident had taken place, the sufferer had gone to a police outpost in Sector 37 in Noida the place no senior police official however constables have been current.

Hence, no criticism was registered, he stated.

“Then he went to the hospital in Jamia Nagar and gave a statement to the Delhi Police that he was robbed, assaulted and suffered injuries. Nowhere he said that it was a case of hate crime or was assaulted because he was Muslim,” Nataraj stated.

Justice Nagarathna stated, “At any point of time the victim cannot be met with disparaging remarks. Victim should not make it look as if he is a perpetrator of crime”.

Justice Joseph stated be in minority or majority, sure rights are inherent in human beings.”You are born into a family and raised in one. We have no choice on our religion, but we stand out as a nation. That’s the beauty, the greatness of our nation. We have to understand this,” he advised Nataraj.

Justice Joseph referring to a latest incident in Rajasthan stated a mute individual was attacked but it surely was later discovered that the sufferer was Hindu.

“If you ignore this (hate crime), then one day it will come for you,” he stated, including that there isn’t a doubt that some folks have a communal angle.

The ASG stated that eight FIRs have been registered in opposition to the gang members and motion has been taken in opposition to them.

The bench then requested when the primary FIR was registered in opposition to the gang members and the way many individuals have been arrested and have been they the identical folks, who attacked the sufferer and when have been they bailed out.

Nataraj stated he’ll file an affidavit giving particulars of all of the FIRs however identified that the primary FIR was registered in June 2021 in opposition to the “screwdriver gang” members they usually haven’t discriminated in attacking Muslims or Hindus.

Advocate Ahmadi stated it took two years to acknowledge that there was a legal incident and in two affidavits filed by the Uttar Pradesh authorities, police have stated that there was no hate crime.

“On July 5, 2021, a police patrol had come to my house and asked not to press for hate crime angle”, he stated, including that the sufferer’s beard was pulled and stripped and made enjoyable of for being circumcised in a automotive.

The bench stated that it can’t challenge a pan-India path on the sufferer’s petition below Article 32, because it might not be a case symptomatic of what’s occurring throughout the nation or in any other case it’ll flood the courts.

ALSO READ | Take offending anchors off air: Supreme Court on hate speech

Nataraj stated police has not denied that there was not a legal incident however no the place it was discovered that it was a hate crime and the sufferer has tried to make the most of media hype and adjusted its statements.

The bench requested the Uttar Pradesh authorities to file an in depth affidavit and posted the matter for additional listening to on March 3.

On October 21 final yr, the apex courtroom had requested Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to crack down onerous on these making hate speeches, observing, “where have we reached in the name of religion, what have we reduced religion to is tragic”.

Holding that the Constitution of India envisages a secular nation, the courtroom had directed the three states to promptly register legal instances in opposition to the offenders with out ready for a criticism to be filed.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday noticed that there’s a rising consensus round hate speech and burdened there isn’t a scope for hate crimes on the idea of faith in a secular nation akin to India.

“There cannot be any compromise on hate speech at all,” the highest courtroom stated and added that it is just if the State acknowledges the issue of hate speech {that a} answer might be discovered.

It additionally stated that it’s the main responsibility of the State to guard its residents from any such hate crimes.

A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated, “When action is not taken against hate crimes then an atmosphere is fostered which is very dangerous and it has to be rooted out from our lives. There cannot be any compromise on hate speech at all.”

The prime courtroom was listening to a plea of a Muslim man who has alleged that he was assaulted and abused within the identify of faith on July 4, 2021, by a “screwdriver gang” of criminals as he had boarded a automotive to go to Aligarh from Noida, and that the police has not bothered to register any criticism of hate crime.

The bench advised Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, showing for the Uttar Pradesh authorities, that, “Nowadays there is a growing consensus around hate speech. There is no scope for hate crimes in the name of religion in a secular country like India. It has to be rooted out and it is the primary duty of the state to protect its citizens from any such crimes. If a person comes to the police and says that I was wearing a cap and my beard was pulled and abused in the name of religion and still no complaint is registered, then it is a problem,” it stated.

Justice Joseph stated motion of each state officer augments respect for the regulation.

Otherwise, everybody will take the regulation into their very own fingers, he stated.

ALSO READ | ‘Ideology of hate’ consuming India, says Gandhi’s great-grandson

The bench, which sat until 6 pm listening to the matter, stated, “Will you not acknowledge that there is a hate crime and you will sweep it under the carpet? We are not saying anything adverse. We are only expressing our anguish. That is all.”

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, showing for the petitioner Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, stated it was on January 13 that this courtroom had requested the state authorities to supply the case diary that police had registered the FIR after two years and that too with all bailable offences barring one.

Nataraj conceded that there have been lapses on a part of police officers and stated {that a} particular investigation group has been constituted headed by an ACP-rank officer and disciplinary motion has been taken in opposition to erring police officers.

The bench stated, “You set an example and let such people face consequences for dereliction of duty. It is only when you take action against such incidents that we will come at par with developed nations. Yes, there has been clear lapse and there is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake”.

Nataraj stated that on July 4, 2021, when the alleged incident had taken place, the sufferer had gone to a police outpost in Sector 37 in Noida the place no senior police official however constables have been current.

Hence, no criticism was registered, he stated.

“Then he went to the hospital in Jamia Nagar and gave a statement to the Delhi Police that he was robbed, assaulted and suffered injuries. Nowhere he said that it was a case of hate crime or was assaulted because he was Muslim,” Nataraj stated.

Justice Nagarathna stated, “At any point of time the victim cannot be met with disparaging remarks. Victim should not make it look as if he is a perpetrator of crime”.

Justice Joseph stated be in minority or majority, sure rights are inherent in human beings.”You are born into a family and raised in one. We have no choice on our religion, but we stand out as a nation. That’s the beauty, the greatness of our nation. We have to understand this,” he advised Nataraj.

Justice Joseph referring to a latest incident in Rajasthan stated a mute individual was attacked but it surely was later discovered that the sufferer was Hindu.

“If you ignore this (hate crime), then one day it will come for you,” he stated, including that there isn’t a doubt that some folks have a communal angle.

The ASG stated that eight FIRs have been registered in opposition to the gang members and motion has been taken in opposition to them.

The bench then requested when the primary FIR was registered in opposition to the gang members and the way many individuals have been arrested and have been they the identical folks, who attacked the sufferer and when have been they bailed out.

Nataraj stated he’ll file an affidavit giving particulars of all of the FIRs however identified that the primary FIR was registered in June 2021 in opposition to the “screwdriver gang” members they usually haven’t discriminated in attacking Muslims or Hindus.

Advocate Ahmadi stated it took two years to acknowledge that there was a legal incident and in two affidavits filed by the Uttar Pradesh authorities, police have stated that there was no hate crime.

“On July 5, 2021, a police patrol had come to my house and asked not to press for hate crime angle”, he stated, including that the sufferer’s beard was pulled and stripped and made enjoyable of for being circumcised in a automotive.

The bench stated that it can’t challenge a pan-India path on the sufferer’s petition below Article 32, because it might not be a case symptomatic of what’s occurring throughout the nation or in any other case it’ll flood the courts.

ALSO READ | Take offending anchors off air: Supreme Court on hate speech

Nataraj stated police has not denied that there was not a legal incident however no the place it was discovered that it was a hate crime and the sufferer has tried to make the most of media hype and adjusted its statements.

The bench requested the Uttar Pradesh authorities to file an in depth affidavit and posted the matter for additional listening to on March 3.

On October 21 final yr, the apex courtroom had requested Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to crack down onerous on these making hate speeches, observing, “where have we reached in the name of religion, what have we reduced religion to is tragic”.

Holding that the Constitution of India envisages a secular nation, the courtroom had directed the three states to promptly register legal instances in opposition to the offenders with out ready for a criticism to be filed.