The Tripura government has told the Supreme Court that “public-spirited” citizens demanding an independent probe into the recent “communal riots” in the state have come with “unclean hands” and, in the guise of public interest, the forum of this court”. oblique” is being used for the purpose.
Pointing to the petitioner’s “silence” on a series of pre-poll and post-poll violence in West Bengal, the Tripura government said that the so-called public sentiment of the petitioners had not escalated a few months back to large-scale communal violence and smaller ones like Tripura. His public sentiment suddenly woke up due to some instances in the state.
“It is pointed out that such a selective indignation of the petitioner has not been presented as a defense before this Court, but to satisfy this Court that in the guise of public interest, the August Forum of this Court is clearly used for skewed purposes,” said an affidavit filed by the state government.
“It is not a question of one petition or the other, but a question of glory and sanctity of proceedings before the Supreme Court of the country. Any person or group of persons who are acting professionally as public spirited individuals/groups , cannot choose extraordinary jurisdiction. To achieve some explicit but undeclared purpose. It is the selective stimulation of public interest that justifies the dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost, the affidavit said.
The affidavit was filed in response to a PIL filed by advocate Athesham Hashmi, seeking an independent probe into the recent “communal riots” in Tripura and the alleged complicity and inaction of the state police in this. The Tripura government further stated that the petition is based on a “private/sponsored” ‘report’ titled “Humanity #MuslimLivesMatter under attack in Tripura” and is not maintainable.
Tripura said, “A genuine and genuine public-spirited citizen shall not be selective in his public interest and shall not be about to run before the court with respect to one state and remain silent with respect to another.”
The present case is clearly a case of selective outrage under the pretense of public interest and to achieve some unknown agenda, it alleged. The north-eastern state recently witnessed incidents of arson, looting and violence, when reports emerged from Bangladesh that Hindu minorities were attacked during Durga Puja over allegations of blasphemy.
Hashmi’s plea alleged that police officers shook hands with criminals and not a single arrest was made in relation to the rioters responsible for the sabotage and arson.
It said that the police and state authorities instead of trying to stop the violence continued to claim that there was no communal tension anywhere in Tripura and denied reports of any religious structure setting on fire.
On November 11, the top court heard a plea by two advocates and a journalist registered against them under stringent UAPA provisions for allegedly bringing out facts through social media posts about violence against minority community in Tripura. A criminal case was sought to be quashed.
These members of the civil society, who were part of a fact-finding committee, have also challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on the ground that the definition of unlawful activities is vague and broad and its Moreover, the law makes it very difficult to grant bail to the accused.
,
read all breaking news, today’s fresh news And coronavirus news Here.
,