New Delhi: Ten days later Supreme court Considered a petition for inquiry Religion Parliament Hate speech And strict action against those who speak abusive language, two organizations The applications have been filed seeking intervention in the matter and a probe into more than two dozen cases of hate speech against Hindus by Muslim politicians and religious leaders in the recent past.
Lucknow-based Hindu Front for Justice, through its president Ranjana Agnihotri, said, “Some leaders and campaigners of the Muslim community are campaigning against Hinduism, the community, their deities and even the sovereignty of India. The provocative speeches made by the leaders created an atmosphere of fear and unrest in the Hindu community and reminded them of the functioning of the Muslim League which resulted in the partition of the country.”
Intervention application cited hate speech against Hindus Zakir Naikoo, Akbaruddin Owaisi of All India Majlis-e Ittehadul Muslimeen, Waris Pathan of AIMIM, Amanatullah Khan and Tauqir Raza of AAP as well as hate words of Urdu poet Munawwar Rana against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi To accept the RS nomination out of 25 instances of hate speech given by Muslim leaders, clerics and others against Hindus.
The second intervention application, filed by Hindu Sena based in Delhi’s Mayur Vihar, said that the Parliament of Religions in Haridwar was an internal matter of Hindus and speeches made there were part of the fundamental right to speak. It said the PIL filed by Qurban Ali, representing Muslims, has nothing to do with interfering in the religious affairs of Hindus.
Both the petitions cited atrocities against Hindus and their places of worship during Islamic rule in India and said that the aggressive response by Hindu saints in the Parliament of Religions to hate speeches by Muslim leaders and clerics “cannot be called hate speech”. Is”. It sought a direction to the state governments to register FIRs against Muslim leaders and clerics for giving hate speeches against Hindus.
On January 12, a bench headed by CJI NV Ramana had sought response from the Centre, the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Uttarakhand Director General of Police on a PIL filed by Kurban Ali, who had called for armed action against the minority community in the gatherings against those giving hate speech. Strict action was demanded. Last month in Haridwar and Delhi.
Sibal said that while the first Dharma Sansad was held in Haridwar between December 17-19, another Dharma Sansad is being planned in Aligarh on January 23. “We are not dealing with Dharma Sansad only regarding hate speech. We do not want Dharma Sansad to happen,” he had requested. But, the SC asked the petitioner to bring his apprehension to the notice of the authorities concerned. was asked for.
When the bench said that it would give ten days time to the respondents to file their reply, Sibal said, “Dharma Sansads are being announced on a daily basis and are going to be held in Una, Kurukshetra and Dasna amid campaigning.” In those states. And since no action was taken by the police against such hate speech criminals who incite violence, the atmosphere of the country is getting spoiled. All this is against the republic of India. It is against the ethos. And the values we cherish as a nation.”
Lucknow-based Hindu Front for Justice, through its president Ranjana Agnihotri, said, “Some leaders and campaigners of the Muslim community are campaigning against Hinduism, the community, their deities and even the sovereignty of India. The provocative speeches made by the leaders created an atmosphere of fear and unrest in the Hindu community and reminded them of the functioning of the Muslim League which resulted in the partition of the country.”
Intervention application cited hate speech against Hindus Zakir Naikoo, Akbaruddin Owaisi of All India Majlis-e Ittehadul Muslimeen, Waris Pathan of AIMIM, Amanatullah Khan and Tauqir Raza of AAP as well as hate words of Urdu poet Munawwar Rana against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi To accept the RS nomination out of 25 instances of hate speech given by Muslim leaders, clerics and others against Hindus.
The second intervention application, filed by Hindu Sena based in Delhi’s Mayur Vihar, said that the Parliament of Religions in Haridwar was an internal matter of Hindus and speeches made there were part of the fundamental right to speak. It said the PIL filed by Qurban Ali, representing Muslims, has nothing to do with interfering in the religious affairs of Hindus.
Both the petitions cited atrocities against Hindus and their places of worship during Islamic rule in India and said that the aggressive response by Hindu saints in the Parliament of Religions to hate speeches by Muslim leaders and clerics “cannot be called hate speech”. Is”. It sought a direction to the state governments to register FIRs against Muslim leaders and clerics for giving hate speeches against Hindus.
On January 12, a bench headed by CJI NV Ramana had sought response from the Centre, the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Uttarakhand Director General of Police on a PIL filed by Kurban Ali, who had called for armed action against the minority community in the gatherings against those giving hate speech. Strict action was demanded. Last month in Haridwar and Delhi.
Sibal said that while the first Dharma Sansad was held in Haridwar between December 17-19, another Dharma Sansad is being planned in Aligarh on January 23. “We are not dealing with Dharma Sansad only regarding hate speech. We do not want Dharma Sansad to happen,” he had requested. But, the SC asked the petitioner to bring his apprehension to the notice of the authorities concerned. was asked for.
When the bench said that it would give ten days time to the respondents to file their reply, Sibal said, “Dharma Sansads are being announced on a daily basis and are going to be held in Una, Kurukshetra and Dasna amid campaigning.” In those states. And since no action was taken by the police against such hate speech criminals who incite violence, the atmosphere of the country is getting spoiled. All this is against the republic of India. It is against the ethos. And the values we cherish as a nation.”
,