The Delhi High Court bench said that if you are saying something with a smile, then there is no crime. But if something objectionable is said then it can be a crime. The bench said this while hearing a petition seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Union Minister Anurag Thakur for hate speech on Friday. The bench has reserved its decision on the petition.
A single-judge bench headed by Justice Chandradhari Singh heard the hate speech on the Delhi riots. He said that often the political speeches given in the elections are slightly different from the speeches in ordinary days. Hence “Check and Balance” is required before registering an FIR on these. Let us inform that a petition was filed by CPI leader Brinda Karat against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Parvesh Verma for hate speech, in which the order of the lower court has been challenged, the criminal complaint was dismissed by the lower court. , which were given just before the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
What did Anurag Thakur say
In his speech, Union Minister Anurag Thakur had used the slogan “Desh ke gaddaro ko, goli maaro salo ko” while calling on supporters to take action against the protesters. The Election Commission had also issued a show cause notice to Thakur for the speech on 29 January 2020. Karat had sought registration of an FIR for hate speech in his complaint before the trial court, which was dismissed. Now Karat has approached the High Court.
Justice Singh remarked that there is a difference between an election speech and speeches delivered at other times, “Because if a speech is made at the time of an election, it is a different time. If you are giving a speech at the normal time, So you’re provoking.”
The bench observed, “In election speech, many things are said by politicians to each other and that too is wrong. But I have to see the criminality of the Act. There’s something to be said for all these things.”
During the hearing, Brinda Karat’s counsel Adit Pujari and Tara Narula had said in their arguments that the speeches incited violence during anti-CAA protests taking place in different parts of Delhi. He also argued that the minister’s use of the word “these people” indicated that he was targeting protesters and a particular community.
To this the judge asked, ‘Where is the communal intent in the speech that the protesters all belong to one community. The bench asked, “If that movement is supported by all other citizens of this country, then how can you say that such a statement has been made by two leaders for only one community?” The bench has reserved its decision on the appeal for the time being.