B final-converted

B
SYNOPSIS
The Petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the urgent
intervention of this Hon’ble Court in respect of the hate speeches that
have been delivered between the 17th and 19th of December, 2021 in
two events organized in Haridwar (by one Yati Narsinghanand), and in
Delhi (by an organization self-styled as ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’) (hereinafter
collectively referred to as “the events”) with the apparent objective of
declaring war against a significant section of the Indian Citizenry.
It is further submitted that the aforementioned hate speeches consisted
of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing.
It is pertinent to note that the said speeches are not mere hate speeches
but amount to an open call for murder of an entire community. The said
speeches thus, pose a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of
our country but also endanger the lives of millions of Muslim citizens.
Inadequate and delayed action by Police Authorities:
It is submitted that despite the passage of almost 3 weeks no effective
steps have been taken by the Police authorities including non-application
of Sections 120B, 121A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that
squarely apply to the said hate speeches.
It is further pointed out that the Police authorities have registered two
FIRs against 10 people who took part in the Haridwar Dharam Sansad but
even in the said FIRs only Sections 153A, 295A and 298 of the IPC have
been made.

C
It is also relevant to note that no action whatsoever has been taken by
the Delhi Police in relation with the event held in Delhi despite the fact
that open calls for genocide, that are available on the internet, were made
therein.
It may further be pointed out that the recent speeches are a part of a
series of similar speeches that we have come across in the past. It may
be noted that no effective steps have been taken under the provisions of
153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 504, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC in respect of the earlier
hate speeches.
The blatant inaction by the Police also came into the forefront when a
Police Officer’s video went viral on the internet, wherein one of speakers
of the aforementioned evens openly acknowledged the officer’s allegiance
with the organizers and speakers of the Dharam Sansad.
It is submitted that the not only the inaction of the Police allows delivery
of hate speeches with impunity but also shows that the Police authorities
are in fact hand in glove with the perpetrators of communal hate.
Reach and mass Appeal and consequences thereof: Plugging in
into a systemic discourse of hateful content, declaration of war
on a section of the population, and encouragement to participate
in the ‘cleansing war’.
1. That the proclamations made at the events are widely available on the
internet and qualify as both extreme hate speech and also as ‘violent
speech inciting targeted killings of Muslim citizens’, which would pass
the ‘spark in a powder keg’ test in Ragarajan v. P. Jagjeevan Ram and
Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 574, and in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
5 SCC 1.

D
2. That the contents of the speech feed into an already prevailing
discourse which seeks to reimagine the Indian Republic as exclusivist,
and that which has no space for other cultures, traditions and practices.
Such a discourse is in itself violative of constitutional guarantees
provided to minority cultures and religions in India.
3. That the aforementioned events violently reiterated the aspiration to
turn India into a state for Hindus alone. (“We all take oath, give our
word, make a resolution that until our last breath, we will make India
a Hindu nation, keep it Hindu only nation”, was the oath administered
at the Delhi event). That the speeches overtly and explicitly described
Indian Muslims as usurpers of territory, and as predators of land,
livelihoods and of Hindu women, thus creating paranoia and a
completely manufactured feeling of being under siege amongst
ordinary Hindu citizens. The discourse argues that Indian Muslim and
Hindu citizens have competing interests, and for the latter to prosper
and achieve cultural self-realization, the nature of the Indian Republic
must be altered to that of a Hindu alone state. In its moderate form,
the discourse advocates an active social and economic boycott of
Muslims, and in some cases physical annihilation.
4. The impact of such repeated speeches shows a rise in structural (in
not allowing vendors into residential colonies; evicting people from
rented accommodation, etc.) and physical violence.
Open calls for genocide in direct violation of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
5. That however the two recent events of Haridwar and Delhi have gone
even beyond the calls for structural violence and urged ‘physical
cleansing’ of Muslims. Yati Narsinghanand said at the event that

E
“economic boycott (against the Muslims) will not work. No community
can survive without picking up weapons. And swords won’t work, they
look good only on stages. You need to update your weapons...more
and more offspring and better weapons can protect you.” The slogan
“Shastramayva jayate” [Weapons alone triumph] was coined, which in
the present context would translate into a call for genocide as per the
definitions in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide to which India is a signatory, Article I has been
extracted below:
“Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed
in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law
which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”
Breach of Duty of Care by the police and other public authorities.
6. That the response of the investigating authorities is arbitrary,
inconsistent and displays abuse of process. At times, the
authorities label the articulation of concerns of certain
communities as ‘fear mongering’ and as attempts to spread
disaffection worthy of charges under UAPA, while at other times,
they seem content to let violence break out.
7. That Amish Devgan v Union of India [2020 SCC Online SC
994]also adopts the ‘context’ principle laid down by Kenneth
Ward and holds thus:
“75. ..‘context’, as indicated above, has a certain key variable,
namely, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is involved and ‘where’ and the
‘occasion,timeandunderwhatcircumstances’thecasearises.
The ‘who’ is always plural for it encompasses the speaker who

F
utters the statement that constitutes ‘hate speech’ and also
the audience to whom the statement is addressed which
includes both the target and the others. Variable context
review recognizes that all speeches are not alike. This
is not only because of group affiliations, but in the
context of dominant group hate speech against a
vulnerable and discriminated group, and also the
impact of hate speech depends on the person who has
uttered the words.
8. That Amish Devgan (supra) states that ‘variable context’ ought
to weigh in favour of the marginalized, however in practice it is
not the case. That police action is often in fact directed at
confusing ‘hate speech’ with unpopular or dissenting speech in
breach of the dictum of Amish Devgan (supra), Pravasi Bhalai
Sangathan v. Union of India, [(2014) 11 SCC 477] and also the
Law Commission 267th
Report.
9. That moreover this Hon’ble Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v.
Union of India [(2018) 9 SCC 501 specifically recognised a ‘duty
of care’ owed in relation to hate crimes by holding that:
“42. Wemayemphaticallynotethatitisaxiomaticthat
it is the duty of the State to ensure that the machinery
oflawandorderfunctionsefficientlyandeffectivelyin
maintaining peace so as to preserve our
quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social
fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law.
In times of chaos and anarchy, the State has to act positively
and responsibly to safeguard and secure the constitutional

G
promises to its citizens. The horrendous acts of mobocracy
cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest
action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the
citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot
be allowed to become “the newnormal”.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
LIST OF DATES
17.12.2021
to
19.12.2021
That between the 17th & 19th of December 2021 at two
separate events organized in Delhi (by the Hindu Yuva
Vahini) and Haridwar (by Yati Narsinghanand), hate
speeches consisting of open calls for genocide of Muslims
in order to achieve ethnic cleansing, were made by the
following:
1. Yati Narsinghanand Giri
2. Sagar Sindhu Maharaj
3. Dharamdas Maharaj
4. Premanand Maharaj
5. Sadhvi Annapoorna alias Pooja Shakun Pandey
6. Swami Anand Swaroop
7. Ashwani Upadhyay
8. Suresh Chavhanke
9. Swami Prabodhanand Giri

H
The aforementioned events and the speeches delivered
during the same are not mere hate speeches but amount
to an open call for murder of an entire community. The said
speeches thus, pose a grave threat not just to the unity and
integrity of our country but also endanger the lives of
millions of Muslim citizens.
23.12.2021
Uttarakhand Police filed an FIR under Sections 153A &
295A of the IPC against 5 people including Wasim Rizvi,
Sant Dharamdas Maharaj, Sadhvi Annapoorna alias Pooja
Shakun Pandey, Yati Narsinghanand and Sagar Sindhu
Maharaj.
27.12.2021
Complaint filed with the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
against the hate speech and promotion of enmity between
different groups on ground of religion by Suresh
Chavhanke, CMD of Sudarshan News & others at events
organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini at Banarasidas Chnadiwala
Auditorium, Delhi.
It may be noted that till date no action has been taken by
the Delhi Police despite the aforementioned complaint.
28.12.2021
That a Police Officer’s video went viral on the internet,
wherein one of speakers of the aforementioned evens
openly acknowledged the officer’s allegiance with the
organizers and speakers of the Dharam Sansad at
Haridwar.

I
31.12.2021
That the organizers announced through a video that they
will hold new events in Aligarh on 23rd
January 2022 and
also in Kurukshetra. The videos of the speeches made at
Haridwar and Delhi are being circulated as ‘promotional
videos’ for the future events.
03.01.2022
Uttarakhand Police filed an FIR under Sections 153A &298
of the IPC against 9 people including Wasim Rizvi, Yati
Narsinghanand, Sant Dharamdas Maharaj, Sadhvi
Annapoorna alias Pooja Shakun Pandey, Sagar Sindhu
Maharaj, Swami Anand Swaroop, Ashwani Upadhyay,
Swami Prabodhanand Giri, Dharamdas Maharaj,
Premanand Maharaj.
06.01.2022 Hence the Petition.

1
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2021
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India read with Order
XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. MR.QURBAN ALI
MS.ANJANA PRAKASH
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
NORTH BLOCK,DELHI - 110001
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, IP ESTATE,
ITO,NEW DELHI - 110002
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
UTTARAKHAND POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
UTTARAKHAND
12 SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN,
UTTARAKHAND ... RESPONDENTS

2
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO ENSURE THAT AN
INDEPENDENT, CREDIBLE AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION IS
CONDUCTED INTO THE INCIDENTS OF HATE SPEECHES AGAINST
THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY INCLUDING THE SPEECHES
DELIVERED BETWEEN THE 17TH
& 19TH
OF DECEMBER 2021 AT
HARIDWAR AND DELHI BY AN SIT OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE
BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS/ORDERS TO THE RESPONDENTS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT PASSED IN THE MATTER OF TEHSEEN
POONAWALLA V. UNION OF INDIA (W.P.NO.754/2016) VIDE
JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2018
INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS TO
THE RESPONDENTS TOWARDS THE PROTECTION OF THE
RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF HATE SPEECHES UNDER ARTICLES 14,
15 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
INDIA SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT DECLARING THE DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO HATE SPEECH AS PER LAW LAID
DOWN BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
TO,
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

3
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. The Petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Hon’ble
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the urgent
intervention of this Hon’ble Court in respect of the hate speeches
that have been delivered between the 17th and 19th of December,
2021 in two events organized in Haridwar (by one Yati
Narsinghanand), and in Delhi (by an organization self-styled as
‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the
events”) with the apparent objective of declaring war against a
significant section of the Indian Citizenry.
It is further submitted that the aforementioned hate speeches
consisted of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve
ethnic cleansing. It is pertinent to note that the said speeches are
not mere hate speeches but amount to an open call for murder of
an entire community. The said speeches thus, pose a grave threat
not just to the unity and integrity of our country but also endanger
the lives of millions of Muslim citizens.
1A. The grievance of the Petitioners, for which the Petitioners are
approaching this Hon’ble Court, is that the Respondents are guilty
of disregarding the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in
Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 9 SCC 501] and
therefore consequential directions are being sought by the
Petitioner herein to ensure that the Respondents effectively and
urgently comply with the directions of this Hon’ble Court in Tehseen

4
Poonawalla (supra). The present Petition also seeks compliance of
the punitive measures contemplated by this Hon’ble Court in
Tehseen Poonawalla (supra). The reliefs being sought by the
Petitioner in the present Petition can only be granted by this Hon’ble
Court. Accordingly, the Petitioners has been constrained to
approach this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the details of the Petitioners are as under:
The Petitioner No.1, Mr.Qurban Ali is a senior tri-lingual (Hindi,
Urdu, and English) journalist with more than 35 years of experience
across all traditional media viz. TV, radio, print, and the Internet.
This includes over 14 years with the BBC World Service, and tenures
with reputed media organisations like Rajya Sabha TV, Doordarshan
News, ETV News, UNI, Observer Group of Publications, Anand Bazar
Patrika Group, etc. He is accredited by PIB, Government of India,
and by Parliament of India as ‘Long & Distinguished journalist’ for
covering proceedings of both the houses of Indian Parliament). His
Aadhaar Card No. and PAN Card No. The Income Tax Return for
the Assessment Year 2021-22 filed by the Petitioner No.2 has been
attached herewith. His email-id and the mobile number.
True copy of Petitioner’s Aadhaar Card and copy of the Petitioner’s
PAN Card are attached. True copy of Income Tax Return
acknowledgement issued by the Income Tax Department in favour
of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2020-21 is also attached.

5
The Petitioner No.2, Ms.Anjana Prakash, is a former Judge of the
High Court of Patna.
Her Aadhaar Card No. and her PAN card No.The Income Tax
Return acknowledgement issued by the Income Tax Department in
favour of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2019-20 is also
being filed with this petition. His email-id and the mobile number.
That the Petitioners do not have any personal/private interest in the
above petition and the same has been filed only in public interest.
3. That the Respondent No.1 of the Ministry of Home Affairs through
its Secretary. The Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi. The Respondent No.3 is the Director General of Police,
Uttarakhand. That all three Respondents fulfill the definition of
‘State’ as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
4. That the Petitioners have no personal interest or motive in filing the
instant petition.
5. In view of the above background, the following substantial questions
of law arise for consideration of this Hon’ble Court:
a. WHETHER the Police authorities failed to take appropriate
action in view of the seriousness of the speeches that were
delivered at the event consisting of open calls for genocide of a
significant section of the Indian citizenry?

6
b. WHETHER the ‘hate speeches’ wherein open calls for genocide
of a significant section of the Indian citizenry were given have
caused harm to a group and whether they are in direct violation
of the constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14, 15
and 21 of the Constitution of India?
c. WHETHER there is breach of a duty of care as laid down by this
Hon’ble Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of
India [(2018) 9 SCC 501] by the Police?
d. WHETHER there is a negligence and a breach of duty of care by
the Police in allowing ‘hate speeches’ to be made in full public
view, such that it causes harm to a group?
6. Facts of the case leading to the filing of the above petition:
That between the 17th & 19th of December 2021 at two separate
events organized in Delhi (by the Hindu Yuva Vahini) and Haridwar
(by Yati Narsinghanand), hate speeches consisting of open calls
for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing, were
made by the following:
1. Yati Narsinghanand Giri
2. Sagar Sindhu Maharaj
3. Dharamdas Maharaj
4. Premanand Maharaj
5. Sadhvi Annapoorna alias Pooja Shakun Pandey
6. Swami Anand Swaroop
7. Ashwani Upadhyay
8. Suresh Chavhanke
9. Swami Prabodhanand Giri

7
The aforementioned events and the speeches delivered during
the same are not mere hate speeches but amount to an open
call for murder of an entire community. The said speeches
thus, pose a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of
our country but also endanger the lives of millions of Muslim
citizens.
That the Uttarakhand Police filed an FIR on 23.12.2021 under
Sections 153A & 295A of the IPC against 5 people including Wasim
Rizvi, Sant Dharamdas Maharaj, Sadhvi Annapoorna alias Pooja
Shakun Pandey, Yati Narsinghanand and Sagar Sindhu Maharaj.
True copy of article dated 24.12.2021 published in the Indian
Todaytitled“HaridwarDharamSansad:FIRlodged,noarrests
made over hate speech” has been annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-1 (Pg. _41 to _42 ).
Complaint dated 27.12.2021 filed with the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi against the hate speech and promotion of enmity between
different groups on ground of religion by Suresh Chavhanke, CMD
of Sudarshan News & others at events organized by Hindu Yuva
Vahini at Banarasidas Chandiwala Auditorium, Delhi.
True copy of complaint dated 27.12.2021 filed with the
Commissioner of Police has been annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-2 (Pg. _43 to _48 ).
It may be noted that till date no action has been taken by the
Delhi Police despite the aforementioned complaint.

8
That on 28.12.2021 a Police Officer’s video went viral on the
internet, wherein one of speakers of the aforementioned evens
openly acknowledged the officer’s allegiance with the organizers
and speakers of the Dharam Sansad.
True copy of article dated 29.12.2021 published in the
FirstPost titled “Haridwar hate speech case: ‘Dharam Sansad’
members, cop caught on camera laughing about being
‘unbiased’; Twitter erupts in anger” has been annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 (Pg. _
49 to 50
).
That on a video dated 31.12.2021 the organizers announced their
intention to hold new events in Aligarh on 23rd
January 2022 and
also in Kurukshetra. The videos of the speeches made at Haridwar
and Delhi are being circulated as ‘promotional videos’ for the
future events.
That the Uttarakhand Police filed an FIR on 03.01.2022 under
Sections 153A & 298 of the IPC against Wasim Rizvi, Yati
Narsinghanand, Sant Dharamdas Maharaj, Sadhvi Annapoorna
alias Pooja Shakun Pandey, Sagar Sindhu Maharaj, Swami Anand
Swaroop, Ashwani Upadhyay, Swami Prabodhanand Giri,
Dharamdas Maharaj, Premanand Maharaj amongst others.
True copy of article dated 03.01.2022 published in the Indian
Express titled “Haridwar Dharam Sansad: Second FIR filed for
hate speech; 10 Hindu leaders booked” has been annexed

9
herewith and marked as Annexure P-4 (Pg,. _51 to 53
).
7. That a comprehensive list with links to extracts of speeches, slogans,
pamphlets and videos annexed to this Petition is as follows:
Video Links:
a) Web-links of the videos hate speeches given during the events
held between 17th
& 19th
December, 2021 at Haridwar and
Delhi are as follows:
Video 1 -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1474846719607140352
Video-2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_3qd8fxK-w
b) Web-link of the video showing speeches that target Muslims
is as follows:
Video-3:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1475083484322430977 [at 1.00
mins “I have alwaysdemanded that the pigs should be treated
like the Uighurs are treated and be put away in camps”
c) Web-link of the video showing the announcement of three
new events in Dasna, Ghaziabad on the 1st
January 2022; in
Aligarh on 23rd
January 2022 and also in Kurukshetra is as
follows:
Video-4:
https://youtu.be/VVbGzbynsjY [ 7.30 mins]

10
d) Web-link of the videos showing instances of followers posting
‘compliance’ in terms of taking the ‘message to the field’,
making videos of acts of violence on a Muslim religious space
or person in compliance of the proclamation of war, and then
posting it back on the internet is as follows:
Video-5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E8rDBN2Ivg
e) Web-link of video showing organizers of the Haridwar Dharam
Sansad laughing with a Police officer and saying that the
officer is on their side is as follows:
Video-6:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaVF2Nn4XkI
8. That the Petitioner has no other alternate, effective and officious
remedy other than to approach this Hon’ble Court through the
present writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India on the following amongst other grounds.
GROUNDS
Inadequate and delayed action by Police Authorities:
A. BECAUSE despite the passage of almost 3 weeks no effective steps
have been taken by the Police authorities including non-application
of Sections 120B, 121A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
that squarely apply to the said hate speeches.

11
It is further pointed out that the Police authorities have registered
two FIRs against 10 people who took part in the Haridwar Dharam
Sansad but even in the said FIRs only Sections 153A, 295A and 298
of the IPC have been made.
It is also relevant to note that no action whatsoever has been taken
by the Delhi Police in relation with the event held in Delhi despite
the fact that open calls for genocide, that are available on the
internet, were made therein.
It may further be pointed out that the recent speeches are a part of
a series of similar speeches that we have come across in the past.
It may be noted that no effective steps have been taken under the
provisions of 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 504, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC in
respect of the earlier hate speeches.
The blatant inaction by the Police also came into the forefront when
a Police Officer’s video went viral on the internet, wherein one of
speakers of the aforementioned evens openly acknowledged the
officer’s allegiance with the organizers and speakers of the Dharam
Sansad.
It is submitted that the not only the inaction of the Police allows
delivery of hate speeches with impunity but also shows that the
Police authorities are in fact hand in glove with the perpetrators of
communal hate.
Reach and mass Appeal and consequences thereof: Plugging in
into a systemic discourse of hateful content, declaration of war
on a section of the population, and encouragement to participate
in the ‘cleansing war’.

12
B. BECAUSE the proclamations made at the events are widely available
on the internet and qualify as both extreme hate speech and also
as ‘violent speech inciting targeted killings of Muslim citizens’, which
would pass the ‘spark in a powder keg’ test in Ragarajan v. P.
Jagjeevan Ram and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 574, and in Shreya Singhal
v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.
C. BECAUSE the contents of the speech feed into an already prevailing
discourse which seeks to reimagine the Indian Republic as
exclusivist, and that which has no space for other cultures, traditions
and practices. Such a discourse is in itself violative of constitutional
guarantees provided to minority cultures and religions in India.
That the aforementioned events violently reiterated the aspiration
to turn India into a state for Hindus alone. (“We all take oath,give
our word, make a resolution that until our last breath, we will make
India a Hindu nation, keep it Hindu only nation”, was the oath
administered at the Delhi event). That the speeches overtly and
explicitly described Indian Muslims as usurpers of territory, and as
predators of land, livelihoods and of Hindu women, thus creating
paranoia and a completely manufactured feeling of being under
siege amongst ordinary Hindu citizens. The discourse argues that
Indian Muslim and Hindu citizens have competing interests, and for
the latter to prosper and achieve cultural self-realization, the nature
of the Indian Republic must be altered to that of a Hindu alone state.
In its moderate form, the discourse advocates an active social and
economic boycottofMuslims, and in some cases physical
annihilation.

13
D. BECAUSE The impact of such repeated speeches shows a rise in
structural (in not allowing vendors into residential colonies; evicting
people from rented accommodation, etc.) and physical violence.
Open calls for genocide in direct violation of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
E. BECUASE the two recent events of Haridwar and Delhi have gone
even beyond the calls for structural violence and urged ‘physical
cleansing’ of Muslims. Yati Narsinghanand said at the event that
“economic boycott (against the Muslims) will not work. No
community can survive without picking up weapons. And swords
won’t work, they look good only on stages. You need to update your
weapons...more and more offspring and better weapons can protect
you.” The slogan “Shastramayva jayate” [Weapons alone triumph]
was coined, which in the present context would translate into a call
for genocide as per the definitions in the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to which India
is a signatory, Article I has been extracted below:
“Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed
in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law
which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”
Breach of Duty of Care by the police and other public authorities.
F. BECAUSE the response of the investigating authorities is arbitrary,
inconsistent and displays abuse of process. At times, the authorities
label the articulation of concerns of certain communities as ‘fear
mongering’ and as attempts to spread disaffection worthy of

14
charges under UAPA, while at other times, they seem content to let
violence break out.
G. BECUASE Amish Devgan v Union of India [2020 SCC Online SC 994]
also adopts the ‘context’ principle laid down by Kenneth Ward and
holds thus:
review recognizes that all speeches are not alike. This
is not only because of group affiliations, but in the
context of dominant group hate speech against a
vulnerable and discriminated group, and also the
impact of hate speech depends on the person who has
uttered the words.
H. BECAUSE Amish Devgan (supra) states that ‘variable context’ ought
to weigh in favour of the marginalized, however in practice it is not
the case. That police action is often in fact directed at confusing
‘hate speech’ with unpopular or dissenting speech in breach of the
dictum of Amish Devgan (supra), Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union
of India, [(2014) 11 SCC 477] and also the Law Commission 267th
Report.

15
I. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India
[(2018) 9 SCC 501 specifically recognised a ‘duty of care’ owed in
relation to hate crimes by holding that:
“42. Wemayemphaticallynotethatitisaxiomaticthat
oflawandorderfunctionsefficientlyandeffectivelyin
maintaining peace so as to preserve our
quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social
fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law.
In times of chaos and anarchy, the State has to act positively
and responsibly to safeguard and secure the constitutional
promises to its citizens. The horrendous acts of mobocracy
cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest
action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the
citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot
be allowed to become “the newnormal”.”
Breach of a Constitutional ‘Duty of Care’ by the Police with
respect to hate crimes:
J. BECAUSE protection from hate speech is a constitutional right, but
moreover Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, [(2014) 11
SCC 477] treats hate speech as systemic. Hate speech has a
cumulative effect as it feeds into an already existing context of social
and political marginalization of a community. Since hate speech has
‘cumulative effect’, there is a constitutional duty to prevent
organized and concerted efforts to create discourses that lead to

16
stigmatizing of a community, which in turn leads to the targeted
community being pushed out of social and public spaces.
K. BECAUSE in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 9 SCC
501 at this Hon’ble Court has stated that
“Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological
dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest
it results in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and
non-State actors cannot be allowed to take the place of
law or the law enforcing agency. A fabricated identity
with bigoted approach sans acceptance of plurality and
diversityresultsinprovocativesentimentsanddisplayof
reactionary retributive attitude transforming itself into
dehumanisation of human beings. Such an atmosphere
is one in which rational debate, logical discussion and
sound administration of law eludes thereby manifesting
clear danger to various freedoms including freedom of
speech and expression. One man's freedom of thought,
action, speech, expression, belief, conscience and
personal choices is not being tolerated by the other and
this is due to lack of objective rationalisation of acts and
situations.”
[Emphasis supplied]
L. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in Tehseen Poonawalla (Supra)
specifically recognised a ‘duty of care’ owed in relation to hate
crimes by holding that:

17
“42. We may emphatically note that it is axiomatic that
of law and order functions efficiently and effectively in
maintainingpeaceso asto preserveourquintessentially
secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic
set-up governed by rule of law. In times of chaos and
anarchy, the State has to act positively and responsibly
to safeguard and secure the constitutional promises to
its citizens. The horrendous acts of mobocracycannot
be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest
action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect
the citizens from the recurrent patternof violence which
cannot be allowed to become “the new normal”.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
M. BECAUSE further in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla (Supra)
crystalizing the principle of ‘duty of care’ that is owed to the process
of investigation, this Hon’ble Court has laid down guidelines for both
‘preventive’ and ‘remedial’ measures to be taken in respect of a hate
crime. This Hon’ble Court held that:
“39. …No citizen can assault the human dignity of
another, for such an action would comatose the majesty
of law. In a civilized society, it is the fear of law that
prevents crimes. Commencing from the legal space of
democratic Athens till the legal system of modern
societies today, the law makers try to prevent crimes
and make the people aware of the same but some

18
personswhodevelop masterly skilltotransgressthelaw
jostle in the streets that eventually leads to an
atmosphere which witnesses bloodshed and tears.
When the preventive measures face failure, the crime
takes place and then there have to be remedial and
punitive measures. Steps to be taken at every stage for
implementation of law are extremely important.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
N. That the guidelines in Paragraph 40 of the judgment in Tehseen
Poonawalla (Supra) include the following:
a) The appointment of a designated nodal officer, not below
the rank of Superintendent of Police for taking measures to
prevent prejudice-motivated crimes like mob violence and
lynching.
b) If an incident of lynching or mob violence comes to the
notice of the local police, the jurisdictional police station
shall immediately lodge and FIR, without any undue delay,
under the relevant provisions of law.
c) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose
police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate
the Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure
that there is no further harassment of the family members
of the victim(s).
d) Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored
by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure that
the investigation is carried out effectively and the charge-
sheet in such cases is filed within the statutory period from

19
the date of registration of the FIR or arrest of the accused,
as the case may be.
e) There should be a scheme to compensate victims of such
prejudice-motivated violence.
f) Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer ofthe
district administration has failed to comply with the
aforesaid directions in order to prevent and/or investigate
and/or facilitate expeditious trial of any crime of mob
violence and lynching, the same shall be considered as an
act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which
appropriate action must be taken against him/her and not
limited to departmental action under the service rules. The
departmental action shall be taken to its logical conclusion
preferably within six months by the authority of the first
instance. [Emphasis Supplied]. It is submitted that this
‘punitive guideline no. i)’ crystalizes the ‘duty of care’, as it
has also evolved in other jurisdictions.
g) In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam Servai v.
State of Tamil Nadu [(2011) 6 SCC 405], the States are
directed 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.
[Emphasis Supplied]

20
O. Duty of care by police as principle of law:
BECAUSE the hate speeches are extreme examples of incitement
and advocating of violence and therefore fails the test laid downby
this Hon’ble Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[(2015) 5 SCC
1 at Para 38]. In fact, there were instances of hate crimes or
prejudice-motivated acts where journalists and members of the
public were attacked and forcibly made to chant slogans.
P. BECAUSE, arguendo even if there had not been any actual violence,
it is respectfully submitted that the police would still have failed its
duty of care and been shown to be negligent in allowing speeches
which are harmful in causing structural violence. It has been
reported that the police have intelligence of the numbers expected,
and also of the nature and purpose of the speeches [intent as laid
down in Amish Devgan v. Union of India [2020 SCC Online SC 994]
Q. BECAUSE Amish Devgan (supra) states that ‘variable context’ ought
to weigh in favour of the marginalized [Supra], however inpractice
it is not the case. It also states “the law of hate speech recognizes
that all speakers are entitled to “good faith” but also that “good
faith” is subjective. It depends on institutional assessments of the
speaker. It has been established in studies on “structural bias’ in the
police force in the UK and the US for instance, that embedded
racism in the force causes a subjective bias against certain
communities.
R. BECAUSE there is now recognition that protecting citizens from a
failure by public authorities to exercise their powers appropriately is
a function of law.

21
S. BECAUSE Courts in UK and Canada have recognized a ‘duty of care’
by the police as a component of both private and public law. In
Robinson v West Yorkshire Police{[2018] UKSC 4 at Paragraph 69},
speaking for the majority, Lord Reed stated that
“(1) I do not suggest that the discussion of policy
considerations in cases such as Hill, Brooks and Smith
should be consigned to history. But it is important to
understand that such discussions are not a routine
aspect of deciding cases in the law of negligence, and
areunnecessarywhenexistingprinciplesprovideaclear
basis for the decision, as in the present appeal. I would
not agree with Lord Hughes’s statement that theyare
the ultimate reasonwhythere isnodutyofcare towards
victims, suspects or witnesses imposed on police
officers engaged in the investigation and prevention of
crime. The absence of a duty towards victims of crime,
for example, does not depend merely on a policy
devised by a recent generation of judges in relation to
policing: it is based on the application of a general and
long-establishedprinciplethatthecommonlawimposes
no liability to protect persons against harm caused by
third parties, in the absence of a recognised exception
such as a voluntary assumption of responsibility.
[...]
(4) The distinction between careless acts causing
personal injury, for which the law generally imposes
liability, and careless omissions to prevent acts (by

22
other agencies) causing personal injury, for which the
commonlawgenerallyimposesno liability, isnotamere
alternative to policy-based reasoning, but is inherent in
the nature of the tort of negligence. For the same
reason, although the distinction, like any other
distinction, can be difficult to draw in borderline cases,
it isoffundamentalimportance. Thecentral pointisthat
the law of negligence generally imposes duties not to
cause harm to other people or their property: it does
not generally impose duties to provide them with
benefits (including the prevention of harm caused by
other agencies). Duties to provide benefits are, in
general, voluntarily undertaken rather than being
imposed by the common law, and are typically within
the domain of contract, promises and trusts rather than
tort. It follows from that basic characteristic of the law
of negligence that liability is generally imposed for
causing harm rather than for failing to prevent harm
caused by other people or by natural causes. It is also
consistentwiththatcharacteristicthattheexceptionsto
the general non-imposition of liability for omissions
include situations where there has been a voluntary
assumptionofresponsibilitytopreventharm(situations
which have sometimes been described as being close or
akin to contract), situations where a person has
assumed a status which carries with it aresponsibility
to prevent harm, such as being a parent or standing in

23
loco parentis, and situations where the omission arises
in the context of the defendant’s having acted so as to
create or increase a risk ofharm.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Breach of General and Statutory ‘duty of care’:
T. BECAUSE the police have a constitutional ‘duty of care’ in conducting
a fair investigation, which is cognizant of fundamental rights under
Article 14 and Article 21.
U. BECAUSE denial of the existence of prejudice-motivated violence
constitutes manifest arbitrariness by the police and is also violative
of Article 14 guarantees.
V. BECAUSE reportedly the police have registered an FIR against
“unknown persons” although the names and pictures of those who
made speeches are widely available on social media.
W.BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court has in a catena of judgments laid down
the statutory ‘duty of care’ of the police both with regard to victims,
as well as to the accused.
In Pooja Pal V. Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 135] this Hon’ble Court
has held that

24
''86. A trial encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal
and retrial i.e. the entire range of scrutiny including crime
detection and adjudication on the basis thereof.
Jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 embraces
both the life and liberty of the accused as well as interest of
the victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the community
at large and therefore, cannot be alienated from each other
with levity. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes
fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Though well-demarcated contours of
crime detection and adjudication do exist, if the investigation
is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, it
would be the solemn obligation of the courts, if considered
necessary, to order further investigation or re- investigation
as the case may be, to discover the truth so as to prevent
miscarriage of the justice. No inflexible guidelines or hard-
and- fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of uniform
and universal invocation and the decision is to be conditioned
to the attendant facts and circumstances, motivated
dominantly by the predication of advancement of the cause of
justice.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
X. BECAUSE the expression "fair and proper investigation" in criminal
jurisprudence was held by this Court in Vinay Tyagi v Irshad
Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762 at Paragraph 48] to encompass two
imperatives; firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just

25
and in accordance with law; and secondly, the entire emphasis has
to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent
jurisdiction. (Kindly also see Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State
of Karnataka [(2012) 7 SCC 407 at Paragraph 64]
Y. BECAUSE in the case Karan Singh v. State of Haryana [(2013) 12
SCC 529] this Hon’ble Court has held that
''16. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free
from any objectionable features or infirmities which may give
rise to an apprehension in the mind of the complainant or the
accused, that investigation was not fair and may havebeen
carriedoutwithsomeulteriormotive.Theinvestigatingofficer
must not indulge in any kind of mischief, or cause harassment
either to the complainant or to the accused. His conduct must
be entirely impartial and must dispel any suspicion regarding
the genuineness of the investigation.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Z. BECAUSE in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
[(2010) 6 SCC 1] this Hon’ble Court has again reiterated that:
“199. …equally enforceable canon of the criminal law is that
the high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not
to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner. The
investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a biased
mind and every effort should be made to bring the guiltyto
law as nobody stands above law dehors his position and
influence in the society.”

26
[Emphasis Supplied]
Protection from ‘hate speech’ is a constitutional and statutory
right:
AA. BECAUSE in the context of the protest rallies where hateful
slogans targeting Muslims were chanted, the available videos show
that the speeches were akin to a ‘spark in a powder keg’
[Rangarajan v. P. Jagjeevan Ram and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 574], which
have a tendency to result in violence against the community that is
the target of such speech.
BB. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court has recognized ‘hate speech’ as
being violative of constitutional guarantees under Article 14, 15 and
21. That in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India
[(2014) 11 SCC 477 at Paragraph 8] this Hon’ble Court has held that
it is the idea of discrimination that lies at the heart of hate speech
principles.
“8. Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based
on their membership in a group. Using expression that
exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to
delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority,
reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.
Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to
individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate
speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on

27
vulnerable sections that can range from discrimination, to
ostracism,segregation,deportation,violenceand,inthemost
extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts a
protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas
under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full
participation in our democracy.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
CC. BECAUSE hate speech protection is not supposed to protect
people from being offended. They protect the dignity of an
individual and group. As stated by Jeremy Waldron in his book The
Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press: 2014), dignity
refers to a person’s basic entitlement to be regarded as a member
of society in good standing, as someone whose membership of a
minority group does not disqualify her from ordinary social
interaction. That is what Hate speech attacks and that is what laws
suppressing hate speech aim to protect.
DD. BECAUSE this view is also acknowledged in the Law
Commission Report at Paragraph 4.4:
“The philosopher Jeremy Waldron argues that, while purely
offensive speech may not justify restrictions, there is a class
of injury, amounting to more than hurt sentiments but to less
than harm, in the sense of physical injury, that demands
restriction in democratic frameworks. Where speech injures
dignity, it will do more harm than simply offend its target. It

28
would undermine the “implicit assurance” that citizens of a
democracy, particularly minorities or vulnerable groups are
placed on the same footing as the majority. While the right to
criticise any group should continue to exist, speech that
negates the right of a vulnerable group should be regulated”.
[Emphasis Supplied]
EE. BECAUSE it is respectfully submitted that at its least harmful,
‘hate speech’ is a discursive process of pushing marginalized groups
outside of social, economic and political spheres of society by
disseminating hate propaganda and encouraging discrimination.
FF. BECAUSE Professor Charles Lawrence writing on how hate
speech causes ‘democratic process defect’ in Stanford Law Review,
Vol. 39, No 2 (1987) Pp. 317 at 345, cites Justice Stone inCarolene
Products [304 U.S. at 152 n.4.], to state that the attempts to
systematically exclude a group from the normal workings of the
political process is that harm that heightened judicial scrutiny seeks
to prevent or remedy. Widespread vilification of certain groups bars
them from the “pluralists’ bazaar” such that these groups are not
able to protect themselves. Thus, constitutional courts should
protect those who are not able to protect themselves politically.
GG. BECAUSE hate speech is not the same as anti-majoritarian
speech or dissenting speech. International jurisprudence (as
acknowledged by the Law Commission’s 267th
Report, 2017 at

29
Paragraphs 4.14, 4.15 and 5.10) acknowledges that hate speech is
essentially an offence against minorities/marginalized groups and
communities in many places.
HH. BECAUSE hate speech feeds into a system of political/social
discrimination and has a cumulative effect on the dignity of a
group/community and its members.
II. BECAUSE the case of Amish Devgan v Union of India [2020 SCC
Online SC 994], reiterates the continuing obstruction that ‘hate
speech’ causes to targeted groups in terms of their participation in
social, economic and political life.
“31.3…..Hatepropagandaarguesforasocietywithsubversion
of democracy and denial of respect and dignity to individuals
based on group identities.”
“108….in a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot
conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy
and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality”
[Emphasis Supplied]
JJ.BECAUSE Amish Devgan (supra) also links hate speech to violation
of unity and fraternity, and ultimately to breach of human dignity,
which is an essential component of Article 21:
“71. The Preamble to the Constitution consciously puts
together fraternity assuring dignity of the individual and
the unity andintegrity of thenation. Dignityof individual
and unity and integrity of the nation are linked, one in

30
the form of rights of individuals and other in the form of
individual’s obligation to others to ensure unity and
integrity of the nation. The unity and integrity of the
nation cannot be overlooked and slighted, as the acts
that ‘promote’ or are ‘likely’ to ‘promote’ divisiveness,
alienation and schematism do directly and indirectly
impinge on the diversity and pluralism, and when they
arewiththeobjective andintenttocause publicdisorder
or to demean dignity of the targeted groups, they have
to be dealt with as per law. The purpose is not to curtail
right to expression and speech, albeit not gloss over
specific egregious threats to public disorder and in
particular the unity and integrity of the nation. Such
threats not only insidiously weaken virtue and
superiority of diversity, but cut-back and lead to
demands depending on the context and occasion, for
suppression of freedom to express and speak on the
ground of reasonableness. Freedom and rights cannot
extend to create public disorder or armour those who
challenge integrity and unity of the country or promote
and incite violence. Without acceptable public order,
freedom to speak and express is challenged and would
get restricted for the common masses and law-abiding
citizens. This invariably leads to State response and,
therefore, those who indulge in promotion and
incitement of violence to challenge unity andintegrity of

31
thenationorpublicdisordertendtotrampleuponliberty
and freedom of others.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
KK. BECAUSE furthermore Amish Devgan (supra) cites with
approval the definition of hate speech as put forward by Alice E.
Marwick and Ross Miller of Fordhan University, New York,
elucidating on distinct elements that describe hate speech as
follows:
“72.1. The content-based element involves open use of
words and phrases generally considered to be offensive
to a particular community and objectively offensive to
the society. It can include use of certain symbols and
iconography. By applying objective standards, one
knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the
content would allow anger, alarm or resentment in
others on the basis of race, colour, creed, religion or
gender.
The intent-based element of ‘hate speech’ requires the speaker’s
message to intend only to promote hatred, violence or resentment
against a particular class or group without communicating any
legitimate message. This requires subjective intent on the part of
the speaker to target the group or person associated with the
class/group.
The harm or impact-based element refersto the consequences of
the ‘hate speech’, that is, harm to the

32
victim which can be violent or such as loss of self-
esteem, economic or social subordination, physical and
mental stress, silencing of the victim and effective
exclusion from the political arena.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
LL. BECAUSE therefore violence as ‘impact ‘or ‘harm’ related to
these rallies is both direct (in the form of lynching, or ‘hate crimes’
that are attacks on the body), and also structural (in not allowing
vendors into residential colonies; evicting people from rented
accommodation, etc.)
MM. BECAUSE Amish Devgan (supra) also adopts the ‘context’
principle laid down by Kenneth Ward and holds thus:
review recognizes that all speeches are not alike. This is not
only because of group affiliations, but in the context of
dominant group hate speech against a vulnerable and
discriminated group, and also the impact of hate speech
depends on the person who has uttered the words. The

33
variable recognizes that a speech by ‘a person of influence’
suchasatopgovernmentorexecutivefunctionary,opposition
leader, political or social leader of following, or a credible
anchor on a T.V. show carries a far more credibility and impact
than a statement made by a common person on the street.
Latter may be driven by anger, emotions, wrong perceptions
or misinformation.This mayaffect their intent. Impact of their
speech would be mere indifference, meet correction/criticism
by peers, or sometimes negligible to warrant attention and
hold that they were likely to incite or had attempted to
promote hatred, enmity etc. between different religious,
racial,languageorregionalgroups.Further,certaincategories
of speakers may be granted a degree of latitude in terms of
theStateresponsetotheirspeech.Communitieswithahistory
of deprivation, oppression, and persecution maysometimes
speak in relation to their lived experiences, resulting in the
words and tone being harsher and more critical than usual.
Their historical experience often comes to be accepted by the
society as the rule, resulting in their words losing the gravity
that they otherwise deserve. In such a situation, it is likely for
persons from these communities to reject the tenet of civility,
as polemical speech and symbols that capture the emotional
loading can play a strong role in mobilizing. Such speech
should be viewed not from the position of a person of privilege
or a community without such a historical experience, but
rather, the courts should be more circumspect when
penalising such speech. This is recognition of the denial of

34
dignity in the past, and the effort should be reconciliatory.
Nevertheless, such speech should not provoke and ‘incite’–
as distinguished from discussion or advocacy – ‘hatred’ and
violence towards the targeted group. Likelihood or similar
statutory mandate to violence, public disorder or ‘hatred’
when satisfied would result in penal action as per law. Every
right and indulgence has a limit. Further, when the offending
actcreatespublicdisorderandviolence,whetheraloneorwith
others, then the aspect of ‘who’ and question of indulgence
would lose significance and may be of little consequence.”
NN. BECAUSE Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights as adopted by General Assembly provides that everyone is
equal and entitled to equal protection against discrimination, and
against incitement to such discrimination. Further, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1992
places positive obligations to limit speech on governments. Article
20(2) of the ICCPR states “Any advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” In other words,
Article 20(2) requires governments who adopt the ICCPR to prohibit
“hate speech.”
OO. BECAUSE in India, constitutionality of hate speech restrictions
have been upheld in the interest of ‘public order’ in as much as it
continues to be punishable under Sections 153A, 153 B, 295A, 298
and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in addition to other laws.

35
7. The Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution for the above facts and
submissions made herein above. The Petitioner has no other
alternative efficacious remedy available other than to approach this
Hon’ble Court.
8. That the Petitioner craves leave to add to amend or alter the
foregoing grounds as and when necessary, and to urge additional
grounds at the time of hearing, with the permission of this Hon’ble
Court.
PRAYER
It is therefore in the interest of justice and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to
ensure that an independent, credible and impartial investigation is
conducted into the incidents of hate speeches against the Muslim
community including the speeches delivered between the 17th
& 19th
of December 2021 at Haridwar and Delhi by an SIT or otherwise as
deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the
Respondents directing them to comply with the guidelines laid down
by this Hon’ble Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (supra)
specifically mentioned under Paragraph 40 thereof;

36
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction defining the contours of ‘duty of care in
investigations’ or the tort of negligent investigations
resulting in harm;
iv) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER,
SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER HUMBLY PRAY.
DRAWN BY:
RASHMI SINGH, ADV.
NEW DELHI DATED: 06.01.2022
FILED BY:
(SUMITA HAZARIKA)
COUNSEL FOR THE P

B final-converted

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to B final-converted

Similar to B final-converted (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

B final-converted