SC Agrees To Hear Plea Against Alleged Hate Speech Scheduled for February 5 in Mumbai

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a petition seeking to prohibit an alleged hate speech event scheduled for February 5 in Mumbai.
A bench of Justice K. M. Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy stated that they will seek instructions from Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and subject to his approval post the matter for hearing on Friday.
“We agree with you, but understand that the Supreme Court cannot be called every time a rally is announced. We have already passed an order that is sufficiently clear. Imagine rallies taking place across the country. There will always be an application before the Supreme Court. How is that possible? You repeatedly ask us to be embarrassed by getting an order. We’ve issued numerous orders, but no one is following through. The Supreme Court should not be asked to rule on an event-by-event basis,” the bench took notice.
The observation came after Advocate Rashmi Singh representing the petitioner
raised the issue claiming that the event organized by the Hindu Jan Akrosh Morcha spread hate speech and creates rift between religious groups. That is why the matter needs to be heard at the earliest.
She also claimed that a similar rally was held a few days ago with 10,000 people attending and calling for an economic and social boycott of Muslim communities. Following the lawyer’s persistence, the court directed her to serve a copy of the application on the counsel for Maharashtra.
“Serve a copy on the State, and we will list it tomorrow, subject to CJI orders. Only this particular case, not the entire batch, “said the bench.
Holding that the Indian Constitution envisions a secular nation, the Supreme Court directed the governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to crack down hard on hate speeches, registering criminal cases against the perpetrators without waiting for a complaint to be filed. The court had also warned that any delay in action by the administration on this “very serious issue” would result in contempt from the court.