Incitement to violence: When will Supreme Court take note?

In the Tehseen Poonawala judgement, the Court had asked that a Nodal Officer be appointed in each district to monitor and identify, with police help, tendencies for vigilantism, mob-violence.

Chief Justice N V Ramana recently exhorted journalists to do their duty and not be “co-opted by an ideology or State”. He declared that the media must defend the judiciary “from motivated attacks” and claimed, “We are together in Mission Democracy and in promoting national interest.”

In that spirit of togetherness one must ask whether the Supreme Court has itself been lax in ensuring the implementation of its orders, in particular the historic order of 17 July 2018 on hate speech inciting mob lynching in Tehseen Poonawala vs. Union of India.

While the Executive is perhaps opportunistically silent, the Supreme Court also has not taken suo motu cognizance of hate speech by saffron-clad provocateurs calling for Muslim genocide. The incitement to violence is in direct contempt of the Tehseen Poonawala order where the Court explicitly recognised that hate speech leads to mob violence.

The three-judge bench laid down clear guidelines for taking preventive, punitive and remedial measures against hate speech. Failure to comply with the order was to be “considered as an act of deliberate negligence” and punishable.

Of the several people who made hate speeches in a public meeting in Haridwar (December 17-19 ) the prominent ones were: Annapurna Ma, Yati Narsinganand, Dharamdas Maharaj, Sagar Sindhu Maharaj, Premanand Maharaj, Prabodhanand and Anand Swaroop Maharaj. They gave a call for Muslim genocide with one even wishing he could have assassinated former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Parliament.  

Here are some particularly egregious excerpts from their speeches:

Annapurna Ma: “If I can wield a knife, I will use a knife. If I can use a sword, then a sword …If nothing I will use my claws like a lioness. …To finish their population, we are ready to kill.”

Yati Narsiganand: “To kill Muslims, swords will not be required, because they won’t die with swords. … Forget the talk of swords, they are useful to only show off on a stage. In a fight a person whose weapons are more powerful than “shatru” (enemy) is the one who wins.”

Dharamdas Maharaj: “When our Indian PM said that the first right to India is of Muslims … I wished I was also an MP and I had a gun in my hand. I would have become Nathuram Godse and shot Dr Manmohan Singh in the chest.”

Sagar Sindhu Maharaj: “We (Hindus) kept fighting with swords, and they (Muslims) had guns. …That’s why while you can have a Rs. 5000 phone, your weapon should be worth at least Rs.1 lakh.’

“It is the duty of Hindus of villages where there are few Muslims, to buy their land and kick them out. Create Muslim-free villages. …I have trapped at least 10 Muslims in fake SC/ST Act cases and sent them to jail. …You should do something to trouble them so that they are forced to sell their homes.”

Premanand Maharaj: “The protection (of Dharma) needs weapons. ...Keep swords at your home and if someone questions you, say that they are for worshipping your Devi (Goddess).”

Prabodhanand: “Either be ready to die yourself or be ready to kill. …That’s why like Myanmar, our police, our politicians, our army and every Hindu here must pick up weapons and conduct a “safaayi abhiyan” (cleansing campaign).”

Anand Swaroop Maharaj:  “Every year on 25th December, Christmas is celebrated in this city (Haridwar). I say now, Christmas won’t be celebrated. Eid won’t be celebrated. All the hotel owners that celebrate Christmas and Eid, should protect their hotels from attack.”

In Delhi at a meeting of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, Editor of Sudarshan TV Suresh Chavhanke led the congregation in swearing an oath, “We will make India a Hindu nation, keep it a Hindu-only nation. We will fight and die and if necessary, we will kill also.”

In the Raipur ‘Dharam sansad’, Kalicharan Maharaj claimed, “That great bas***d Gandhi ruined the politics of the country. I salute the great Nathuram Godse for killing Gandhi.” Attacking Muslims, he said that Hindus must take care of ‘these abscesses’ or else they will become cancerous.

There is prima facie a case of wilful disobedience of the Court’s orders in the events in Haridwar, Delhi and Raipur. Initially, the only FIR lodged by the Uttarakhand police was for derogatory comments against the Prophet under IPC Section 153A against Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi (aka Wasim Rizvi). After public outcry, four more names were added -- Annapurna Ma and Dharamdas Maharaj (December 27), and Yati Narsinganand and Sagar Sindhu Maharaj (January 1). The Delhi police is yet to book Chavhanke. In Raipur, Kalicharan Maharaj has been arrested.

In the Tehseen Poonawala judgement, the Court had asked that a Nodal Officer be appointed in each district to monitor and identify, with police help, tendencies in the district for vigilantism, mob-violence or lynching and prevent the creation of a hostile environment. The DGPs of the states were directed to hold quarterly meetings with the nodal officers and devise strategies for tackling hate speech. Perhaps the court needs to review whether state governments have implemented these processes and consider whether failure to follow its orders amounts to contempt.

The police was directed by the Court to register FIRs against those inciting violence. Should the police officer or official of the district administration fail to comply with the Supreme Court’s order, the states were “to take disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.”

Most importantly, the apex court must ensure that the culprits are booked and tried for criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting terrorist acts, wanton vilification of a religion, insulting and outraging a religious community and for intent to create ill-will based on religion. They must be met with the full force of the Law. Falling short on this count is not an option for the judiciary if it desires to be recognised as an independent pillar of our democracy.