The Supreme Court on Thursday chose not to entertain a contempt petition concerning the oversight of a proposed “Dharam Sansad” event by Yati Narsinghanand in Ghaziabad, instead directing Uttar Pradesh authorities to monitor the situation closely. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, emphasized the importance of vigilance without directly intervening in the event’s proceedings.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing Uttar Pradesh, was instructed by the court to ensure local authorities “keep a watch and track of what is happening” at the event, scheduled to take place from December 17 to December 21 at the Shiv-Shakti temple complex in Dasna, Ghaziabad.
This directive aligns with the court’s earlier orders aiming to curb hate speech across India. On April 28, 2023, the Supreme Court had mandated that all states and union territories initiate legal action against individuals making hate speeches, irrespective of whether a formal complaint has been lodged. A specific order on October 21, 2022, had previously directed three states, including Uttar Pradesh, to actively suppress hate speech, warning that any delays in enforcement would be considered contempt of court.
The refusal to hear the contempt plea was explained by the court as a measure to prevent the Supreme Court from becoming the initial recourse for such matters, suggesting that lower jurisdictions can also adequately address these issues. “We have to also accept that all matters can’t come to the Supreme Court. If we will entertain one, we will have to entertain all,” the bench conveyed to advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the petitioners.
The petitioners, including notable activists and former bureaucrats like Aruna Roy and Ashok Kumar Sharma, expressed concerns over alleged hate speech and sought urgent judicial intervention to prevent potential communal unrest. They had labeled the inaction of the Ghaziabad district administration and UP police as “willful and deliberate contempt” of the Supreme Court’s directives against hate speeches.
