The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday adjourned the hearing to August in a slew of petitions seeking action in connection with various incidents of hate crimes, including hate speech, around the country.
Advocate Nizam Pasha argued on behalf of a petitioner who filed a contempt petition against Maharashtra for allegedly neglecting to act on incidents of hate speech. He told a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Aravind Kumar that the government’s counter-affidavit did not include copies of first information reports (FIR), despite the fact that they were listed in the document.
“To the best of our knowledge, some of the dates are incorrect. According to our information, the FIRs are for some other date and some other incidents,” he stated.
“You file a counter. How should I respond to your oral assertions?” Tushar Mehta, Solicitor-General, yelled.
“A petitioner residing in Delhi is orally disputing some event in Mumbai,” he noted.
Pasha explained that their only goal was to obtain copies of the relevant FIRs.
The law officer responded, “We will supply whatever is required. You are not permitted to participate in the appeal of our judgement.”
The bench said that “copies of the FIR mentioned in the counter-affidavit shall be made available to the petitioner.”
In addition, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), informed the court that the human rights organization had submitted an affidavit.
“In the last days, we should not be troubling Your Lordships,” Solicitor-General objected, referring to Justice Joseph’s upcoming retirement, which will take effect during the vacation (June 16).
“It’s important,” Parikh insisted, adding, “the number of incidents of hate speech in the state of Maharashtra continues. That is stated in our affidavit.”
“File FIRs or appear before the magistrate. The Supreme Court is not a magistrate’s court,” the law officer stated emphatically. Mehta also claimed that hate speech occurrences had “neither increased nor decreased”.
“Petitioners are selectively bringing cases before the Supreme Court. Is it because states other than Maharashtra are peaceful, or that other communities do not engage in hate speech? This is a case of selective litigation,” he noted.
Parikh continued, “Your Lordships had asked us to make suggestions, so we have included that in our affidavit.
The law office, however, interfered once more, adding, “This court did not want your suggestions. You wanted to give them. The Supreme Court does not want suggestions, it issue directions.”
“I’ll keep quiet then,” Parikh replied. However, Justice Joseph urged him to continue, stating, “If everyone keeps quiet, the court will stop functioning.”
The senior counsel then informed the court that not only were incidents of hate speech continuing, but no action had been taken in response to FIRs filed by the police.
“Your Lordships, please refer them to the magistrate. There is a system in place,” the solicitor-general replied.
“Do not worry. Everything will be taken into account,” Justice Joseph informed Parikh.
Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj also chipped in, noting that the earlier directives granted by the court with respect to suo motu action against hate speech had the quality of a ‘continuous mandamus’.
“These would need to be kept and made absolute. These orders must be carried out,” he continued.
“I will make only one submission when the matter is heard. This is not a magistrate’s court. There is legislation in place. There is a framework in place if there is a violation,” Solicitor-General Mehta said.
“We will leave it at that,” Justice Joseph stated. The bench ultimately agreed to adjourn the hearing until the first week of August.
