New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 19) refused to entertain a contempt plea against the authorities of Uttar Pradesh for allowing a ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Ghaziabad and asked the district officers to take all precautionary measures to ensure there is compliance of its earlier orders to deal with the issue.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed petitioner to approach the concerned authorities.
Approach the High Court, bench told petitioner
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner, told the bench that they had made a complaint in this regard to the concerned authorities but the permission was granted to hold a ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Ghaziabad.
The bench then told Bhushan to approach the High Court.
District officers have to take all precautionary measures to ensure there is compliance of earlier orders: Apex Court
“We are not inclined to entertain it. We reiterate the earlier orders that the district officers take all precautionary measures to ensure there is compliance,” the bench said.
The bench asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to direct authorities to keep a track and video recording of the event.
Bhushan had earlier on December 16 mentioned the plea before the CJI-headed bench for early hearing of the petition against a ‘Dharam Sansad’ being organised in Ghaziabad by Yati Narasinghanand, alleging that an open call for genocide of Muslims was made.
The apex court had asked Bhushan to send an e-mail in this regard.
The said ‘Dharam Sansad’ was proposed to be held from December 17 to December 21 at the Shiv-Shakti temple complex in Dasna, Ghaziabad.
Plea was filed by former IAS officers and activists.
The contempt petition before the apex court was filed by former IAS officers and activists, contending that the Uttar Pradesh administration was not taking steps as directed by the top court to deal with hate speeches.
What did the apex court direct earlier on hate speeches?
The Supreme Court earlier, while hearing batch of pleas related to hate speech, termed the hate speeches as a serious offence, saying it of having the capability to destroy country’s social fabric. The top court had directed all states and Union Territories (UTs) to ensure that suo motu action is taken to register hate speech cases even in the absence of a complaint and without taking into consideration the religion of the offenders.
The top court earlier had said that it wants authorities to take effective practical steps to ensure that its directions given in the 2018 verdict in the Tehseen Poonawalla case dealing with hate speeches, lynching and mob violence are followed.
