Despite being denied permission for the event in Haridwar, another gathering took place on December 20, where similar inflammatory rhetoric was once again echoed. The said event, organized by Yati Narasinghanand, was marked by a series of hate speeches that incited violence and targeted the Muslim community. Narasinghanand, known for his controversial rhetoric, repeated inflammatory statements calling for the creation of a Hindu-only nation, free of Muslims, mosques, and madrasas. Other speakers at the event, including right-wing figures, made similarly provocative remarks, with one monk calling for violent actions against those perceived as enemies of Hindus and accusing Muslims of being responsible for the destruction of Hindu temples. The speeches included calls to pick up arms in defence of Hinduism and incited hostility towards Muslims, with derogatory language and references to historical grievances. These hate-filled statements not only sought to provoke religious tensions but also called for physical violence against those who did not conform to the speakers’ vision of a Hindu nation.

At the same event, as per ABPLive, Narasinghanand has announced plans to move the ‘Dharma Sansad’ to the Prayagraj Kumbh.

The court proceedings- Supreme Court and High Court

High Court: Prior to an event in Haridwar where dog-whistling against Muslims reportedly occurred, the Uttarakhand High Court had issued a crucial directive on December 20. Justice Alok Kumar Verma, presiding over a single bench, instructed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Haridwar to ensure law and order in response to a proposed ‘Dharma Sansad’ organised by the controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand. The event had aimed to rally Hindu organisations and advocate for the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra. The court also reiterated the Supreme Court’s directions in Shaheen Abdullah v. State, emphasising that state authorities must act suo-motu to address any hate speech targeting religious communities, even without formal complaints.

Supreme Court: On December 19, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a contempt petition against the Uttar Pradesh government and police for allegedly failing to prevent the ‘Dharam Sansad’ organized by Yati Narasinghanand in Ghaziabad from December 17 to 21. Narasinghanand, known for his history of making communal remarks targeting Muslims, was the central figure behind the event. However, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to take all necessary measures to prevent any hate speeches during the event.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar emphasised the need for the state to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s previous directions concerning hate speech prevention. CJI Khanna instructed that the event should be monitored and recordings of the proceedings be made, stressing that the Court’s decision not to entertain the petition did not imply any tolerance for violations.

When the petitioners, including former civil servants and activists, pointed out that the event’s promotional materials contained hate speech against Muslims and incited violence, CJI Khanna suggested that the petitioners approach the High Court, as the Supreme Court typically refrains from being the first point of contact in such matters. He also noted that if violations occurred, bail cancellation could be sought for Narasinghanand, who is out on bail in several hate speech cases. The Court reiterated its earlier orders for district officers to ensure all precautionary measures were taken to prevent any violations of its directives.

Detailed piece regarding the said petition can be read here.

Hate mongering by Yati Narsinghanand

On December 20, after being denied administrative permission to hold a ‘Dharma Sansad’ in Haridwar, he shifted the event’s focus to conducting a Mahayagya at the Sripanchdashnam Juna Akhara headquarters. During this ritual, he called for the “destruction” of individuals who had hindered the original programme. Addressing a gathering of followers, he declared, “The biggest reason for the misery of us Hindus is that we do not have a country of our own,” reiterating his demand for a Hindu Rashtra. Narsinghanand further unveiled his vision of a “Sanatan Vedic Nation,” one that, according to him, would have “no room for a single mosque, a single madrasa, or a single jihadi.” Drawing a comparison with Israel’s protective stance towards Jews, he claimed that such a nation would serve as a global guardian for Hindus.

In addition to this, a widely circulated video shows him addressing an audience alongside other right-wing figures, where he issued a veiled threat against AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi. Referring to Owaisi’s 2012 speech in Telangana, in which Owaisi controversially stated that “if the police were to be removed for 15 minutes, the Muslim community could show its strength,” Narsinghanand declared: “If the police move away for 15 minutes, this person asking and lecturing for time will not survive.” The statement drew cheers and chants of “Har Har Mahadev” from the audience. He went on to pledge his family’s complete dedication, even to the point of sacrifice, for the cause of “Sanatan Dharma.”

At the World’s Religion Parliament in #Haridwar on December 20, 2024, controversial #Hindutva monk #YatiNarsinghanandGiri made a provocative statement, saying, “If the police moves away for 15 minutes, this person asking for time will not survive.” pic.twitter.com/trOsjvgtMV

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) December 22, 2024

Narsinghanand’s comments, filled with communal overtones, reflect a persistent pattern of dog-whistling and explicit incitement against Muslims. By invoking the idea of a Hindu Rashtra devoid of diversity and issuing veiled threats of violence, he continues to fan the flames of communal division. These events highlight the unchecked rise of far-right narratives, raising concerns about the absence of strong legal action against such blatant hate speech. The lack of accountability not only emboldens such figures but also poses a grave risk to social harmony and the secular fabric of the nation.

A deep dive into Yati Narsinghanand’s history of spreading hate may be read here.

The CJP video may be viewed here.

Other hate speeches delivered

At the said event in Haridwar, several other speakers joined Yati Narsinghanand in delivering speeches laced with communal rhetoric and expressing grievances over the authorities’ actions against the event. The details are as follows:

Shrimahant Raju Das: Raju Das of Ayodhya’s Hanuman Garhi delivered an instigatory speech expressing outrage over the cancellation of the Vishwa Dharma Sansad by the authorities. He criticised the actions of the police and district officials, describing their intervention as the “height of insult” to Sanatan Dharma. According to Raju Das, the decision to halt the event, which was organised to highlight alleged atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh, demonstrated blatant disrespect towards Hindu religious practices and beliefs.

He accused the officials involved of behaving autocratically and called upon Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami to intervene in the matter. Raju Das demanded that action be taken against what he termed “shameless officials” who disrupted the religious gathering. “Entering the headquarters of Sripanchdashnam Juna Akhara and stalling the Vishwa Dharma Sansad shows that now Sanatan Dharma has become a subject of joke for the officials,” he stated. His remarks suggested that the authorities’ actions were not merely administrative decisions but part of a larger pattern of undermining Hindu traditions and leadership.

Raju Das further framed the cancellation as a deliberate affront to the dignity of Hindu religious institutions, amplifying the grievances of the attendees and organisers. His rhetoric, steeped in the language of victimhood and religious insult, sought to rally support against what he portrayed as systemic disrespect for Sanatan Dharma by state officials. This sentiment resonated strongly with the audience, who viewed the disruption as an attack on their religious and cultural identity.

Unidentified monk: Video of an unidentified monk has also surfaced from the said event, where he has made comments that are deeply, concerning and reflect a blatant incitement to violence, hate, and religious intolerance. The speech, filled with derogatory language and dangerous rhetoric, targets Muslims and secular Hindus while calling for violent actions to “protect” Hindus from alleged threats. It attacks individuals and groups based on their religion, denigrates Muslims in particular, and glorifies the idea of violence as a form of self-defence for Hindus.

In one section, the monk lashes out at BJP ministers for not reacting strongly enough in Parliament, accusing them of being passive while Hinduism is allegedly attacked. He uses inflammatory language to suggest that Hindu ministers should resort to physical violence against their political opponents, specifically targeting a person referred to as “the son of Sonia,” presumably a reference to Rahul Gandhi. This rhetoric escalates by suggesting that Hindu ministers should “tear apart” their opponents in Parliament, a call to violent action that could undermine public trust in democratic processes.

The monk continues by declaring that Hindus have become “secular” and have lost their historical and religious significance, positioning them as victims of a perceived rise in Islamic power. His remarks paint a picture of Hindus as under siege and calls for an armed response against Muslims, suggesting that Hindus should “pick up arms” to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

Other parts of his speech contain discriminatory and violent language, referring to Muslims using dehumanizing terms such as “children of demons” and calling for the prevention of Azaan and Muslim events in mosques or madrasas. He makes inflammatory comparisons between Muslims and pigs, calling them undeserving of living in India, which is not only deeply offensive but also further fuels religious intolerance and division.

Such speech is dangerous and contributes to an atmosphere of hate and distrust between communities. It is crucial for legal and social systems to respond to such hate speech promptly, holding individuals accountable for statements that incite violence and undermine the principles of pluralism and coexistence that are foundational to a democratic society.

Transcription of the speech:

“In the parliament, the son of Sonia has been punching at nationalist ministers. Now tell me, you (BJP) have so many ministers present in the parliament, why did you not crush him there and then? They have attacked Hindus. It is so sad when we see him calling Hindus as violent while the Hindu ministers sit and watch. They should take the name of Mahadev and tear him apart in the Parliament itself.”

“Hindus are stupid. We see our God and Goddesses taking up weapons, but we have become secular Hindus and have lost everything. There used to be a time when our Sanatana Dharma was everywhere in the world, and there used to be no Father or Chaddar. But we have lost it all and the situation is such now that we are a minority in 9 states. They are the children of demons; they won’t leave us.”

“The way these Islamists are finishing those who are non-Muslims, it is high time that we pick up arms and be alarmed of their actions. Who will protect you? Now it is your time to pick up the arms and protect you children, your shops and houses, your family and future.”

“I want to urge the PM and the Union HM to ensure that no Azaan or any Muslim event takes place in any Madrasa or Mosque.”

In Maharashtra, there live some children on pigs, and then there are some Sanatanis present there who conquer over then and wave the flags of Sanatan.”

“There is this big monster in front of us who is planning to eradicate humanity, as they have done in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria. But I feel pain when yeh sab bh***o ke bache, yeh nalayak baap ki aulaad, s**r ke bache say that Hindu-Muslims are brothers. Are h*******n, nalayakon, those who could not be the brothers of their own sisters and cannot be brothers to Shias if they are Sunnis, how will they be our brothers?”

“There was an issue in a village where a s**r (slur for Muslims) was looting a cycle. When he was caught, the seculars wanted to leave him. But I am not a secular, I would have (makes gesture for taking out a sword and slaughtering) done it and taken the name of our Gods.”

“In India, we cannot have children of pigs living in India.”

Kalicharan Maharaj: Kalicharan Maharaj made controversial remarks in which he compared the teachings of Islam and Hinduism regarding war. He claimed that Muslims are taught that engaging in war would earn them women in heaven. In contrast, he referred to the Bhagavad Gita, suggesting that Hindus are taught that fighting to protect their religion will bring them God’s favour. However, he criticised Hindus for not following this principle, accusing them of being passive and failing to act when needed. He argued that those who do not follow God’s commands will not receive divine assistance in times of need. To underline his point, Kalicharan Maharaj referenced historical events, stating that when Muslims destroyed 500,000 Hindu temples, no divine intervention occurred, implying that the lack of action from Hindus led to this absence of divine help.

Transcription of the speech:

“They are told that if they indulge in war, they will get women in heaven. We are taught through Bhagwat Gita that if we indulge in war for protecting our religion, we will get God. But we do not follow the teachings of our Gods, and rather sit ideally. And those who do not follow the orders of God, the God will also not come to save them when they require it. History has seen it that when these Muslims demolished 5 lakh temples, no God came out.”

Related:

Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC

Yati Narsinghanand booked for comments on former president

UP: Yati Narsinghanand delivered provocative anti-Muslim hate speech, invoked Love-Jihad, temple demolition

The post Hate speech and calls for violence at Yati Narsinghanand’s Mahayagya event– A push for a Hindu Rashtra amidst dog whistling against Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The full court meet was called to discuss the issue of designating retired judges of the High Court as senior advocates. However, the CJI is learnt to have brought up the issue of Justice Yadav. “It is very much an ongoing issue and no decision has been made. The full court was just told that the meeting had taken place,” a source said.

Another source said that at the meeting Tuesday, the Collegium had told Justice Yadav that a public apology on record was needed to put the issue to rest. But he wanted to clarify from a public platform at a future date that his remarks had not been taken in the proper spirit.

Notably, it is now learnt that the Collegium will wait for a few days before deliberating on the next steps. The CJI is meanwhile in the process of discussing the issue with the full court is seen by those in the judicial circles as an indication of the Collegium’s seriousness of the issue and an attempt to “take the court into confidence” on the next steps.

What the Collegium can do is either transfer the judge or initiate an in-house inquiry. The process of an in-house inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act is a precursor to recommending the judge’s removal to the President.

It was while addressing an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on December 8 on the premises of the Allahabad High Court, that Justice Yadav had targeted Muslims and framed the Uniform Civil Code as a Hindu versus Muslim debate where the former had brought in reforms while the latter had not.

“You have a misconception that if a law (UCC) is brought in, it will be against your Shariyat, your Islam and your Quran,” Justice Yadav said. “But I want to say one more thing… whether it is your personal law, our Hindu law, your Quran or whether it is our Gita, as I said we have addressed the ills (buraaiyan) in our practices… kamiyan thi, durust kar liye hain (the shortcomings have been addressed) …untouchability… sati, jauhar… female foeticide…we have addressed all those issues… Then why are you not doing away with this law… that while your first wife is there…you can have three wives… without her consent… that is not acceptable.”

Justice Yadav went on to say that Hinduism had the seeds of tolerance which Islam didn’t. He also said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan… and the country will run according to the majority who live in Hindustan.”

Related:

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

The post CJI Khanna apprises full court of SC on Collegium meeting with Justice Yadav appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioners, a group of former civil servants and activists, have highlighted that the event’s website and promotional materials are riddled with inflammatory content, openly calling for violence against followers of Islam. They have accused the Ghaziabad District Administration and Uttar Pradesh Police of failing to implement the Supreme Court’s clear directives to take suo-moto action against hate speech.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, urgently mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, seeking immediate intervention as the event is set to commence tomorrow. However, the Chief Justice directed Bhushan to file a formal urgency application, leaving precious little time for any concrete action to prevent this hate-filled gathering.

The petitioners include notable figures such as Aruna Roy (Retd IAS), Ashok Kumar Sharma, Deb Mukarji, and Navrekha Sharma (Retd IFS), along with Syeda Hameed, former NCW Chief, and Vijayan MJ, a social researcher. These individuals have consistently spoken against the rising tide of communal violence and the growing impunity of hate-mongers like Narsinghanand.

It is worth recalling that the ‘Dharam Sansad’ events held by Narsinghanand in 2021 sparked national outrage due to their explicit calls for genocide against Muslims. Despite his arrest for hate speech and his subsequent release on bail, Narsinghanand has continued to spew communal poison without restraint. Shockingly, even the Supreme Court’s notice to him in a criminal contempt case for his derogatory remarks against the judiciary has done little to curb his hateful tirades.

The state’s apparent refusal to act in the face of such blatant incitement raises troubling questions: Is the administration complicit in enabling hate speech? Or has the law been reduced to a mere spectator, powerless against the rise of hate-driven extremism? With the Dharam Sansad on the horizon, the consequences of this inaction could be catastrophic.

It is essential to provide here that sources from the ground have told SabrangIndia that the Utar Pradesh police has issued a letter that Dharam Sansad has not been granted permission. It is pursuant to the same that Yati Narsinghanand had announced they are moving the event to Haridwar. However, the Source has told the SabrangIndia team that the Haridwar police has also issued a letter stating that they have denied the permission, but the organisers of the event are threatening to go ahead.

Hate speech marks the announcement of controversial ‘Dharm Sansad’ in Uttarakhand

On September 10, 2024, Yati Ramswaroopanand, a close associate and follower of the infamous Yati Narsinghanand, delivered a deeply disturbing hate speech at the Dehradun Press Club. The event, ostensibly organised for “Sanatani Hindus,” became a platform for Ramswaroopanand to spew venomous and dehumanising rhetoric against Muslims, where he shockingly announced the upcoming ‘Dharm Sansad,’ scheduled for December. This announcement, made against a backdrop of vile and divisive commentary, exemplifies the dangerous intersection of hate speech and communal mobilisation in India.

During his speech, Ramswaroopanand labelled Muslims as “not human” and called for stripping them of their rights, openly dehumanising an entire community. He incited fear with baseless and grotesque claims, alleging that Muslims in Bangladesh had “raped, cut into pieces, and eaten” women. He used this fabricated narrative to argue that Uttarakhand was on the verge of becoming a “second Bangladesh,” stoking communal tensions with deliberate misinformation. The seer even urged Hindus to “arm themselves” under the pretext of protecting their families, a call that dangerously borders on incitement to violence. (Detailed report may be read here.)

In his inflammatory speech, Ramswaroopanand claimed that Muslims were increasing their population to create new countries, while Hindus were being rendered “impotent” and helpless. He pledged to use the December ‘Vishwa Dharma Sansad’ to strategise ways to make Uttarakhand “Islam-mukt” (free of Islam), directly advocating for communal exclusion and hatred.

A video of the said speech may be referred here:

The event, promoted as a gathering for “Sanatani Hindus,” was widely publicised on social media. Videos of Ramswaroopanand’s speech, which included phrases like “Every person reading and believing the Quran becomes a terrorist,” went viral, sparking outrage and concern. The Dalanwala police registered a suo motu FIR under sections 196 (promoting enmity) and 353 (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Dehradun SSP Ajai Singh cited Supreme Court guidelines requiring immediate action against hate speech, but beyond the FIR, no substantive steps have been taken to hold the speaker accountable.

This event is particularly alarming because the announcement of the ‘Dharm Sansad’—an event already under scrutiny for its history of incendiary rhetoric—was made at a venue where hate speech was not only delivered but celebrated. Ramswaroopanand’s remarks mirror the toxic legacy of his mentor, Yati Narsinghanand, who has a long history of using platforms like the ‘Dharam Sansad’ to spread communal hatred.

Notably, Narsinghanand himself is the key organiser of this upcoming ‘Dharam Sansad.’ Despite being out on bail with explicit conditions prohibiting him from making hate speeches, he continues to flout the law with impunity. On September 29, 2024, he had delivered another inflammatory speech in Ghaziabad, which led to violence. Yet, the Uttar Pradesh police have failed to seek the cancellation of his bail, enabling him to orchestrate yet another divisive event.

This pattern of impunity has drawn sharp criticism from civil society. An open letter by former civil servants and activists, including Aruna Roy, Ashok Kumar Sharma, and Syeda Hameed, lambasted the authorities for failing to enforce the Supreme Court’s directives on hate speech. The letter called out the administration for allowing events like the ‘Dharm Sansad’ to proceed, despite their clear potential to incite violence and disrupt communal harmony.

The stakes are high as the ‘Dharam Sansad’ approaches. Ramswaroopanand and other organisers have continued their campaign of provocation, even presenting blood-written letters to Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami in November, demanding the state be declared “jihad-free.” This dramatic and deeply unsettling act underscores the audacity of these hate-mongers and the complicity of those who enable their actions.

The announcement of the ‘Dharm Sansad’ at an event laced with hate speech is a stark reminder of the growing normalisation of communal hatred in India. The failure to act decisively against figures like Ramswaroopanand and Narsinghanand sends a dangerous message: hate speech and calls for violence can be delivered without fear of consequences. With the event just days away, the question remains—will the state and law enforcement finally act, or will this disturbing cycle of hate continue unchecked?

Opposition to the upcoming Dharam Sansad

1. Civil Society groups demand action against upcoming ‘Dharam Sansad’: In a strong show of resistance, over 65 organisations and 190 civil society activists from 22 states have addressed an open letter to the President of India, urging the immediate cancellation of a ‘Dharam Sansad’ planned from December 19 in Uttar Pradesh. Organised by notorious Hindutva leaders, including Yati Narsinghanand—who has repeatedly been accused of delivering hate speeches and inciting violence—the event has sparked nationwide concern over its potential to stoke communal tensions.

The letter highlights the unchecked actions of Hindutva figures like Narsinghanand, Rakesh Tomar, and Darshan Bharati, who, despite facing multiple charges for hate speech and direct violations of bail conditions, continue to operate with impunity. “No action is being taken against these individuals despite their history of incitement to violence and their blatant defiance of court orders,” the letter states, underlining the grave inaction by law enforcement agencies and the state governments.

The signatories caution against the planned ‘Dharam Sansad,’ warning that it involves individuals with records of violence and hate crimes. They also raise alarm over the involvement of “national and international elements” linked to such crimes. The letter asserts, “A group of people already charged with multiple offences, whose activities have drawn national and international condemnation, is planning a public gathering in western Uttar Pradesh with the explicit intent to propagate hate and division.”

Representatives from prominent organisations such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA), Ambedkar Students Forum, Bharat Jodo Abhiyan, and Bebak Collective are among the signatories. These groups have consistently worked to uphold constitutional values and fight against communal violence.

The letter makes urgent demands, including:

• Immediate cancellation of the ‘Dharam Sansad.’
• Prevention of international participants linked to hate crimes from entering India for the event.
• Legal action by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to revoke the bail granted to Yati Narsinghanand and others in violation of their bail conditions.
• Enforcement of Supreme Court orders to prosecute hate speech and protect minorities from targeted attacks.
• Compensation for victims, especially minorities, who have suffered violence as a result of hate speech and inflammatory events.

The civil society members emphasise that the union Government and the state administrations have a constitutional duty to act against hate crimes and uphold public order. They argue that failing to prevent this gathering will further embolden individuals already responsible for communal disharmony and violence.

The letter ends with a plea for accountability: “We urge the government to comply with the law, safeguard minorities, and ensure that such divisive and inflammatory programmes are not allowed to threaten the secular fabric of our country.”

This urgent appeal underscores the growing frustration among civil society groups over the unchecked rise of hate speech and violence in India and their determination to confront this disturbing trend through collective action.

2. Former civil servants urge Union HM Amit Shah to intervene against communal events in Uttarakhand: Over eight dozen former civil servants have written an open letter to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, demanding immediate action to prevent the planned Mahapanchayat in Uttarkashi on November 4, 2024, and the Dharma Sansad scheduled for December. These events, organised by figures like Yati Narsinghanand, have been condemned for spreading hate and inciting violence against minorities. The signatories, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), have expressed grave concern over the inaction of the Uttarakhand police in addressing violations of bail conditions by Narsinghanand and others, despite their repeated use of incendiary rhetoric to foment communal unrest. They argue that Narsinghanand, in particular, should be arrested under the National Security Act (NSA) for attempting to disrupt public order.

The letter underscores a troubling shift in Uttarakhand, a state once celebrated for its peace and pluralism, which is now being transformed into a breeding ground for communal hatred. The former civil servants highlighted what they called a “wilful injection of communal poison” into the state’s social fabric, driven by majoritarian forces seeking to create an aggressive and militarised version of Hindutva. These efforts, they argue, are aimed at forcing minorities to live in perpetual fear while promoting a narrative of Hindu supremacy. The letter calls this strategy a template for spreading similar campaigns across other regions that have thus far resisted such divisive politics.

The former bureaucrats sharply criticised the authorities’ failure to act against hate speech and violence, despite clear Supreme Court directives mandating legal accountability. They also expressed dismay at the lack of action against repeated bail violations by individuals like Narsinghanand, who has continued to organise events aimed at inciting communal violence. The signatories demanded that both the Mahapanchayat and Dharma Sansad be immediately cancelled, and that the police take strict legal action against all those involved in promoting hate and inciting violence. They further urged the Union government to ensure accountability from the Uttarakhand police, insisting that the state’s law enforcement agencies must act in accordance with constitutional principles and judicial mandates.

In their appeal, the signatories expressed no political affiliation, stating that their concern is solely for the preservation of peace and harmony in Uttarakhand. They warned that failing to act decisively against such events would irreversibly damage the state’s legacy of coexistence and turn it into yet another battleground for communal conflict. Through this letter, the CCG has once again called attention to the escalating threat of communal polarisation in India and the urgent need for firm government intervention to uphold the nation’s secular values.

The letter may be read here.

3. Ayodhya’s Mahant Ram Das appeals to State and Union Governments to deny permission for Yati’s event: Mahant Ram Das, a prominent religious leader from Ayodhya, has appealed to both the State and Central Governments to withhold permission for the controversial World Religious Convention scheduled to take place at Dasna, Ghaziabad, organised by Yati Narsinghanand. Known for his inflammatory rhetoric and involvement in communal hate speech, Narsinghanand’s event has raised serious concerns regarding the potential for further incitement to violence and communal unrest. In his appeal, Ram Das emphasised the need to uphold public order and prevent any event that could disrupt the peace and harmony of the region, urging the authorities to take a firm stance against such divisive gatherings.

The social media post may be accessed below:

The controversial rise of the ‘Dharma Sansad’ and Yati Narsinghanand’s hate speech

A Dharma Sansad, or “Religious Parliament,” is traditionally a platform for Hindu religious leaders, or Sants, to deliberate on issues they deem important to Hindu dharma and make decisions regarding religious matters. The first Dharma Sansad was convened by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in 1984 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, where a pivotal decision was made to launch the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, igniting one of the most contentious religious and political struggles in India’s history that led to violence and encouraged divisions. Subsequent Dharma Sansads were held in various parts of the country, with the VHP’s margadarshak mandal (a body of 65 prominent Sants) at the helm of these events. These sansads began to focus on a wide range of issues concerning Hindu identity and unity, often invoking deep religious sentiments and ideologies rooted in the belief of Hindu cultural and religious supremacy.

In the 1985 Dharma Sansad held in Udupi, for instance, resolutions were passed demanding that important religious sites, such as Shri Ramjanmabhoomi, Shri Krishnajanmasthan, and the Kashi Vishwanath temple, be immediately handed over to the Hindu community. These resolutions set the stage for a series of confrontations that would come to define the religious and political landscape of India for decades, where foundation for religious attacks against religious places and Hindu majoritarianism would be set. Since then, the VHP has organised 17 such sansads, where religious leaders gather to guide the Hindu community on matters of faith, spirituality, and social cohesion. However, the nature of these events has changed over time, especially as they have become increasingly intertwined with the rise of Hindutva politics.

In recent years, the tone has shifted towards a more aggressive and exclusionary rhetoric. The last Dharma Sansad in Haridwar in 2019 demanded the freeing of Hindu temples from government control, and it was held against the backdrop of rising tensions between different religious communities in India. These events, however, started taking a more radical turn with the controversial Dharma Sansad held in Haridwar in December 2021, a shocking turning point in the nature of these gatherings. Over the course of three days, prominent Hindutva figures, hard-line religious leaders, and right-wing activists delivered speeches urging violence against Muslims and calling for a complete annihilation of the Muslim community. The event, which attracted national attention, also saw the participation of BJP leaders like Ashwini Upadhyay, whose involvement in previous events calling for violence against Muslims had already raised alarm.

The Haridwar Dharma Sansad became infamous for the volume of hate speech that was broadcast publicly. Among the most vocal speakers was Yati Narsinghanand, notorious for his incendiary remarks and hate-driven rhetoric. During the event, Narsinghanand, alongside other prominent speakers, incited violent action, calling for genocide and openly threatening the Muslim community. Video footage from the event, including a disturbing clip showing Narsinghanand threatening police officers during the arrest of Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly Wasim Rizvi), further highlighted the dangerously inflammatory nature of the gathering. In the video, Narsinghanand can be heard telling the police, “Tum sab maroge” (“You will all die”), showcasing his disregard for public order and law enforcement.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the legal response was slow. The police only filed an FIR on December 23, and Tyagi was arrested on January 13, 2022, for his inflammatory remarks at the event. Narsinghanand was arrested a few days later, but received bail on February 7, 2022, despite his history of hate speech and his violation of bail conditions. His bail conditions required him not to repeat the same offences or participate in any events that could stir communal disharmony. Yet, just months after his release, Narsinghanand continued his hate-driven activism, making further derogatory and harmful remarks about Muslims.

In September 2024, Narsinghanand stirred controversy once again during an event in Ghaziabad, where he called for the burning of effigies of Prophet Muhammad instead of Ravana during Dussehra. His provocative speech incited widespread anger within the Muslim community, triggering mass protests across multiple cities, including Kashmir, Saharanpur, Aligarh, Meerut, Ghaziabad, and Hyderabad. Protesters demanded Narsinghanand’s immediate arrest, accusing him of inciting violence and spreading communal hatred. His inflammatory rhetoric also included references to Muslim workers infiltrating Hindu homes, accusing them of targeting Hindu women. This baseless and harmful accusation further fuelled tensions, as it played into already existing stereotypes and prejudices, creating a sense of fear and division.

The protests across the country are a direct response to Narsinghanand’s repeated violations of the law and his role in inciting hatred and violence. While Narsinghanand continues to enjoy significant support within certain Hindutva circles, his actions have clearly crossed the line into criminal behaviour. However, despite the widespread public outcry, authorities have failed to take firm action against him, allowing him to continue stoking communal tensions.

In November 2024, CJP had released a chilling investigative video exposing the dangerous rise of hate in India. It goes beyond individuals like Yati Narsinghanand to uncover the deeper ecosystem that fuels their venom. Hindutva organisations, social media platforms like Meta, and government inaction—this is the unholy nexus enabling hate to thrive unchecked. Through shocking footage, incendiary speeches, and in-depth analysis, the video reveals alarming patterns of violence against Muslims and other minorities. Yet, amidst the despair, CJP stands firm—fighting legal battles, documenting hate crimes, and holding perpetrators accountable. If the government won’t act, civil society must rise. But how long can this burden fall on the people? How much longer will justice remain a distant dream?

The CJP video may be viewed here.

A deep dive into Yati Narsinghanand’s history of spreading hate may be read here.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Retd. Muslim Army Officer Faces Ire of ‘Hindutva’ Forces; FIR Filed After 2-Yr Legal Battle

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

The post Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Of the 85 opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha, sources have told the media that 36 Opposition MPs cutting across parties have already signed the petition, initiated by Independent Rajya Sabha MP and lawyer Kapil Sibal. The Opposition was, in all likelihood, going to move it on Thursday after organising more signatures. The INDIA bloc needs 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha to be able to move it.

Among those who have already signed include the Congress’s Digvijaya Singh, Jairam Ramesh and Vivek Tankha; the Aam Aadmi Party’s Sanjay Singh; the Trinamool Congress’s Saket Gokhale and Sagarika Ghose; the RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha; the Samajwadi Party’s Javed Ali Khan; the CPI(M)’s John Brittas; and the CPI’s Sandosh Kumar.

In the notice, that lays downs the grounds for impeachment, initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav under Section 3(1)(B) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act read with Articles 124(4) and 124 (5) of the Constitution has been demanded. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge has to be made through a resolution signed at least by 100 members if moved in the Lok Sabha and by 50 MPs if initiated in the Rajya Sabha.

Apart from a written text, the INDIA Alliance will, reportedly attach video clips and transcripts of Justice Yadav’s controversial speech along with links of news articles on the same. Procedurally, once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. If accepted, a three-member committee comprising two judges and a jurist is constituted to probe the complaint and determine if it is a case fit for initiating the process of impeachment.

The committee normally includes one judge from the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of a High Court if the complaint is against a High Court judge, or two Supreme Court judges if the complaint is against a sitting judge of the apex court.

Article 124 (4) of the Constitution says the motion for impeachment “has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting” – in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Given the majority enjoyed by the NDA bloc in both Houses, and the ruling coalition’s brazen support to majoritarian communal politics, the motion of impeachment is unlikely to clear either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.

In the past, there have been four attempts to impeach High Court judges and two to remove Supreme Court judges, with the last being in 2018 against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. None of the motions cleared the entire process.

Article 124 (4) of the Constitution states, “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, states: “If notice is given of a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of a Judge… then, the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or, as the case may be, the Chairman (Rajya Sabha) may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.”

Article 124 (5) says: “Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4)”.

Monday December 9 morning opened to outrage at the video screenings of an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on the Allahabad High Court premises Sunday, Justice Yadav said: “You can’t disrespect a woman who has been recognised as a goddess in our Shastras and Vedas. You can’t claim the right to have four wives, perform halala, or practice triple talaq. You say, we have the right to say ‘triple talaq’, and not give maintenance to women.” He then made some distasteful and anti-Constitutional remarks on how ‘Hindu children are brought up to be tolerant’ unlike Muslim children where upbringing was to the contrary.

According to a VHP press release, the judge also spoke in favour of the UCC. “Having different Constitutions for people of different communities and religions in a country is no less than a danger to the nation. When we talk of human uplift, it should rise above religion and should be within the ambit of the Constitution… If the interests of a woman are to be protected, whether it is about her wealth, her maintenance, her rightful share in the property, her remarriage, or her freedom to choose a partner, the limits of all these things should be decided within the ambit of one Constitution,” Justice Yadav said.

Related:

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

The post Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A statement issued by the Court reads, “The Supreme Court has taken note of the newspaper reports of a speech given by Mr Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the High Court and the matter is under consideration.”

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has ignited a firestorm of criticism following his inflammatory remarks at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). His speech, riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones, has been widely condemned as a blatant attack on the Constitution and a violation of judicial propriety. Justice Yadav not only endorsed the controversial Uniform Civil Code (UCC) but also made derogatory statements against the Muslim community, questioning their religious practices and labelling certain members as a threat to national progress. This behaviour, unbecoming of a sitting judge, has cast a shadow over the judiciary’s independence and neutrality, raising urgent concerns about the erosion of constitutional values under the guise of judicial authority.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has demanded an immediate in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, urging Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to take decisive action. In its strongly worded letter, CJAR highlighted that the judge’s actions have deeply undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It described his comments as “unpardonable and unconscionable slurs” against Muslims, which not only discredit his position but also violate constitutional provisions, including Articles 12, 21, 25, and 26, along with the Preamble that guarantees secularism, equality, and justice.

CJAR files complaint before CJI Sanjiv Khanna seeking in-house inquiry against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after in a recent speech he made contentious statements against the Muslim community and stated that India will function as per the wishes of the majority… pic.twitter.com/D2zqUNWSwp

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) December 10, 2024

Brinda Karat, a Polit Bureau member, also condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks, categorising his speech as hate speech and a betrayal of his constitutional oath. In her letter to the CJI, Karat stated that such statements from a sitting judge are an affront to India’s secular and democratic ethos and an assault on judicial impartiality. She argued that no litigant from a minority community could expect fair treatment in a court where such prejudiced views are openly held. Calling for the judge’s removal, she asserted that his continued presence on the bench was an insult to the judiciary and its commitment to upholding the Constitution.

In her letter, Karat has said that “This speech is an affront to the collective conscience of a secular and democratic country. That it should have been made by a justice of the Allahabad High Court is also an assault on the processes of justice. No litigant can hope for justice in a court in which a member holds such a biased, prejudiced, publicly expressed opinion against the minority community and in favour of a majoritarian approach.”

She further said “Such a member brings disgrace to the bench, to the court, to the judicial system as a whole. There can and should be no place for such persons in a court of justice. The country would no doubt be grateful for action from the highest court on this issue.”

https://cpim.org/brinda-karats-letter-to-cji/

The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) joined the chorus of protests, condemning Justice Yadav’s remarks as an endorsement of religious majoritarianism. AILU leaders Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya and PV Surendranath described the speech as promoting an ideology aligned with a Hindutva Rashtra, which they said is fundamentally opposed to the democratic and secular principles of the Indian Constitution.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising called Justice Yadav’s participation in a politically charged VHP event a “shameful” breach of judicial independence, questioning the propriety of his actions.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal escalated the criticism by calling for Justice Yadav’s impeachment. Sibal argued that the judge’s statements were a grave violation of judicial ethics and independence, warning that failure to act decisively would indicate tacit support for his divisive views. Sibal emphasised that the judiciary must remain impartial and free from the influence of communal ideologies, urging political leaders to join forces in holding Justice Yadav accountable.

As per LiveLaw, Sibal stated that “Main chahunga ki some jo Satta- Paksh ke log hai woh hamare saath jurein, aur hum ikkatha ho kar iss judge ke impeachment karein. Hamara Samvidhaan bhi kehta hai ki judiciary independent honi chahiye. Toh mujhe Poora Vishwas hai ki PM, Home Minister aur satta mein Jo MPs hai wohi hamara saath dein. Kyunki agar woh saath nahi dengay toh Aisa lagega ki woh judge ke saath hai. (I would would like the government to join us in impeaching the HC judge. Our constitution also requires judiciary to be independent. The PM, Home Minister and other MPs should show support in impeaching else it will look like they are siding the judge)”

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal calls for impeaching Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over his recent speech at #VHP event

“Main chahunga ki some jo Satta- Paksh ke log hai woh hamare saath jurein, aur hum ikkatha ho kar iss judge ke impeachment karein.”

( I would would like the government to… pic.twitter.com/krJaOOBLBy

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 10, 2024

Justice Yadav’s speech, far from being a neutral discussion on the UCC, was rife with communal bias. He openly criticised Islamic practices, labelled Muslims as “kathmullas” (fanatics), and suggested that their beliefs hinder national progress. Such remarks not only demeaned a specific community but also betrayed the secular and pluralistic framework of the Constitution. The widespread condemnation of his statements underscores the urgent need for accountability, as his behaviour has shaken faith in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice impartially and uphold constitutional values.

Politicians slam Justice Yadav’s remarks

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech at a VHP event drew sharp criticism not only from the legal fraternity but also from prominent political leaders across party lines. Politicians accused the judge of undermining constitutional values and promoting majoritarianism, with some even questioning his suitability for the bench. The backlash from political circles highlighted the broader implications of his remarks on India’s secular fabric and the perception of judicial neutrality

SP leader Ramgopal Yadav invoked the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) while criticising Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial remarks. He accused the RSS of manipulating systems to influence judicial outcomes, stating, “RSS has always been like that; they can do anything to get to the Supreme Court.” His comment underscored the political implications of Justice Yadav’s statements and the perceived alignment with Hindutva ideologies.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM), the Trinamool Congress (TMC), and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) also strongly condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks, labelling them divisive and inappropriate for a sitting judge. These parties argued that such statements not only violated judicial propriety but also reignited critical debates on the independence and neutrality of the judiciary.

AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi expressed sharp criticism of Justice Yadav’s participation in an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), a group closely associated with the RSS, the ideological foundation of the BJP-led government. Owaisi highlighted the controversial history of the VHP, pointing out that it has been banned multiple times due to its association with hate and violence. He further referenced Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s decision to ban the RSS, calling it a “force of hate and violence,” and described Justice Yadav’s involvement with the VHP as deeply concerning.

Owaisi, in a post on X, remarked, “It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This speech can be easily rebutted, but it is more important to remind Your Honour that the Constitution of India expects judicial independence and impartiality.” His statement encapsulated the growing unease over Justice Yadav’s alignment with communal ideologies, arguing that his actions undermined the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter of justice.

The VHP was banned on various occasions. It is associated with RSS, an organisation that Vallabhai Patel banned for being a ‘force of hate and violence.’

It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This “speech” can be easily… https://t.co/IMce7aYbcf

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 9, 2024

A High Court judge used the word ‘kathmulla’ and set down conditions for Muslims in India (as if we need his permission). Just some reminders from the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (1997):

1. Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done. The…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 9, 2024

I have signed a notice seeking removal proceedings against Shekhar Yadav, judge of Allahabad High Court. The process was initiated by @RuhullahMehdi. The judge’s behaviour violates constitutional norms, including the Supreme Court’s “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.”

The…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 10, 2024

These reactions reflect the broader outrage against Justice Yadav’s remarks, which are widely viewed as a dangerous departure from constitutional values and judicial ethics.

Details of the speech

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has courted controversy with remarks that are not only highly partisan but blatantly communal, delivered during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). Speaking on the topic “Uniform Civil Code: A Constitutional Necessity” at the High Court’s Library Hall in Prayagraj, Justice Yadav’s speech went far beyond advocating for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It veered into overtly derogatory and inflammatory commentary targeting Muslims and their personal laws, raising grave concerns about judicial propriety and impartiality.

Justice Yadav declared that the country would be governed by the will of the “bahusankhyak” (majority), claiming, “Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted.” He took aim at specific Islamic practices, including polygamy, Halala, and Triple Talaq, dismissing them as incompatible with Indian values, which he defined exclusively through a Hindu lens. Drawing a flawed equivalence with historical reforms within Hinduism, such as the abolition of Sati and untouchability, he questioned, “Why can’t the law permitting Muslims to have multiple wives be outlawed as well?” Such remarks not only show a lack of understanding of constitutional protections for religious diversity but also vilify an entire community’s personal laws under the guise of reform.

Justice Yadav’s speech also included troubling references to “kathmullas“—a derogatory term for Muslims he described as fanatics who “incite the public and prevent the country from progressing.” He labelled them a “danger to the country,” further stigmatising the Muslim community. While acknowledging that not all Muslims were “bad,” this attempt at nuance was overshadowed by his communal overgeneralisation and thinly veiled prejudice.

Even more concerning is the platform Justice Yadav chose for these remarks—a VHP event tied to a right-wing ideology. He brushed aside advice from colleagues to exercise restraint, asserting, “I am a judge of this High Court, but I am also a citizen of this country, and I will say whatever is appropriate for a citizen and for this country.” Such justifications are deeply problematic, as they undermine the expectation of neutrality and secularism from members of the judiciary.

Justice Yadav’s speech, replete with incendiary rhetoric, does not merely advocate for the UCC but promotes a divisive majoritarian worldview that undermines the constitutional commitment to secularism and equality. The judiciary, tasked with upholding the rights of all citizens, particularly minorities, cannot afford to be seen as endorsing or propagating communal bias. Statements such as “this country will function as per the wishes of the majority” fundamentally betray the constitutional promise of justice for all, regardless of religion.

This instance represents a stark challenge to judicial integrity. When a sitting judge aligns with polarising ideologies and denigrates a community, it erodes public faith in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of justice. Justice Yadav’s comments do not merely breach judicial propriety—they reflect a dangerous slide toward institutional partisanship that threatens India’s secular and democratic fabric.

Pattern of Hindutva bias in Justice Yadav’s judgments and conduct

An analysis done by The Scroll of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s judicial orders over the past three-and-a-half years reveals a consistent reliance on Hindutva narratives. His judgments have frequently referenced points aligned with right-wing ideology, including advocating for the state to honour cows and Hindu gods. He has echoed conspiracy theories about forced religious conversions and accused individuals of misusing the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to file false complaints. Notably, Justice Yadav has even publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, further raising concerns about his impartiality.

Notably, these actions stand in stark violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a code of judicial ethics adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. The code explicitly states that judges must refrain from expressing views on political matters or engaging in public debates on issues likely to arise for judicial determination. It emphasises that judges must always be aware of their public role and avoid any conduct unbecoming of their high office or undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

The code states “A Judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination;” and that, “Every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s actions—both from the bench and beyond—underscore a troubling departure from the expected standards of judicial conduct and neutrality. By aligning himself with divisive ideologies and participating in politically charged events, he risks eroding public trust in the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values. His pattern of judgments invoking Hindutva talking points, coupled with his open praise for political figures and participation in events organised by right-wing groups, challenges the foundational principle of judicial independence. At a time when the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter is crucial, such conduct not only undermines its credibility but also raises pressing questions about accountability within the judicial system. If left unchecked, this trend could have far-reaching consequences for the secular and democratic fabric of the nation.

Justice Yadav’s participation in the VHP-organised event, compounded by his history of ideologically charged judgments, has drawn widespread criticism. The timing of this event, just months after the VHP’s legal cell organised a controversial “Judges Meet” in September 2024—attended by several former judges, including retired Supreme Court Justice Hemant Gupta—has only intensified concerns about the perceived proximity between members of the judiciary and right-wing organisations. Many argue that such associations jeopardise the judiciary’s independence and erode trust in its commitment to constitutional values.

Related:

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

BJP’s Hindutva shift, strategy of diverting from real issues and concerns over electoral tactics

Indore Court clears Muslim bangle seller of molestation charges after lengthy legal battle, states that prosecution failed to prove charges

The post Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Details of complaints:

• Jalgaon [November 15, 2024]

Speaker – Suresh Chavhanke

On November 15, 2024, CJP filed a complaint before the CEO Maharashtra regarding the gross violation of MCC in Jalgaon, Maharashtra, due to the hate-filled rhetoric of Suresh Chavhanke. Chavhanke’s speech at the Janata-NRC event blatantly violated the MCC and undermined the principles of free and fair elections as pleaded by the CJP in its complaint. The said speech was delivered by Suresh Chavhanke at the Janta-NRC event on November 8, 2024, in Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

In his address, Chavhanke explicitly targeted Muslim citizens by misrepresenting Islamic symbols, falsely claiming that the crescent and star, often associated with Islam, belonged not to Islam but to the Muslim League, and linking it to the creation of Pakistan. He further propagated misinformation by associating the true Islamic flag with extremist ideologies. Referring to Muslims as “infiltrators” and calling for their removal to “save Maharashtra,” he sought to fuel communal tensions. Additionally, he promoted the baseless “Vote Jihad” conspiracy, accusing Muslims of using elections to wage a religious war, inciting division and hostility.

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “This statement is highly provocative and anti-Muslim because it labels Muslims as “infiltrators” and associates them with a threat to India’s integrity. The call to “drive out the infiltrators” implies that Muslims are unwelcome outsiders, fostering fear and hatred. The comparison of the saffron flag to the Tricolor and the assertion that without saffron, the Tricolor will “turn green” insinuates that Muslims, symbolized by green, pose a threat to national unity. Furthermore, the term “vote Jihad” equates Muslim political participation to religious warfare, encouraging communal hostility and framing elections as a religious battle, thus deepening divisions.

The video can be accessed through this link: https: https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/802

Full Complaint can be read here:

2. Akola [November 13, 2024] & 3. Pathanpura (Mangrulpir) [November 11, 2024]

Speaker – Suresh Chavhanke

On November 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint regarding the hate-filled speeches delivered by Suresh Chavhanke, editor-in-chief of Sudarshan News, in Akola and Pathanpura (Mangrulpir), Maharashtra. Chavhanke’s speeches, delivered on November 13, 2024, in Akola and November 11, 2024, in Pathanpura, contained clear examples of hate speech, particularly targeting the Muslim community. Throughout his speeches, Chavhanke used derogatory terms like “love jihad,” “intruders,” and “jihadists,” portraying Muslims as a threat to national security and fueling fear by labeling them as “infiltrators” from neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Myanmar.

Furthermore, Chavhanke invoked historical figures such as “Aurangzeb” and “Tipu Sultan” to vilify Muslims, manipulating religious sentiments to create division. He also urged voters to support laws targeting Muslims, including “cow protection” and the baseless “love jihad” conspiracy. This inflammatory rhetoric was designed to incite hatred and polarize communities. CJP’s complaint highlighted that Chavhanke’s speeches violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951, which prohibit hate speech and the incitement of religious division during election periods, as per CJP’s complaint.

CJP said in its complaint that, “By linking political choices to religious identity and inciting voters to act against Muslim communities, the speaker attempts to polarize the election along religious lines. The call to vote based on laws like “love jihad” or “cow protection” further encourages discrimination, suggesting that the Muslim community is responsible for crimes against Hindu women or society. This creates a hostile, divisive atmosphere, undermining the principles of free and fair elections.”

The video can be accessed through this link: https: https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/835 & https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/829

The Complaint can be read here:

• Delgur, Nanded [November 21, 2024]

Speaker – Harsha Thakur

On November 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint regarding the anti-Muslim and communal hate speech delivered by right-wing leader Harsha Thakur at a public event in Delgur, Nanded, Maharashtra. Thakur, campaigning for independent Hindu nationalist candidate Dr. Virupaksha Maharaj, made inflammatory remarks that blatantly violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and undermined free and fair elections. On October 29, 2024, Thakur’s speech contained divisive rhetoric, calling for Hindus to avoid supporting those who allegedly sided with other religious communities.

She warned that if Sharia law were implemented, valuable land would be transferred to the Waqf Board, inciting fear and communal tension. Thakur further urged voters to prioritize religious unity over caste-based voting. Her comments, intended to stoke division, violated MCC provisions by inciting religious hatred and manipulating religious sentiments for electoral gain. CJP emphasized that these statements contravened Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951.

According to CJP’s complaint in her speech, Thakur urged voters that, “Don’t vote for a candidate who gives employment to Muslims!” and further stated, “India will never work on Sharia law,” while also spreading unfounded fears about the Waqf Board. This rhetoric is not only inflammatory but also divisive, promoting religious intolerance and fear-mongering. By appealing to voters on religious lines and stoking fear about Muslims and their institutions, Thakur’s speech creates a dangerous environment of communal polarization.”

The video can be accessed through this link: https: https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/825

The Complaint can be read here:

• Kolhapur [November 15, 2024]

Speaker – BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dhananjay Mahadik

On November 15, 2024, CJP approached the CEO Maharashtra with a complaint against BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dhananjay Mahadik, following his controversial remarks at a rally in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. In a video that surfaced, Mahadik was seen instructing party workers to target women beneficiaries of the Ladki Bahini Yojana attending Congress rallies. He directed his supporters to photograph or film these women and report back to him. His statement, “I will teach those women a lesson,” was a clear attempt to intimidate and surveil women based on their political affiliations. These actions were seen as an explicit violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.

CJP argued that Mahadik’s directive not only threatened women’s rights to political participation but also used a government welfare scheme intended for empowerment as a tool for political control. The complaint called for immediate action under electoral laws to address this form of intimidation.

The video can be accessed through this link: https://x.com/HateDetectors/status/1856274208646672512

The Complaint can be read here:

Notably, CJP played a pivotal role in monitoring the assembly elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, vigilantly flagging complaints of hate speech and violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Their persistent efforts resulted in the registration of FIRs against Suresh Chavhanke and Kajal Hindustani in Maharashtra for delivering inflammatory speeches that breached MCC guidelines.

Related:

CJP files 3 MCC violation complaints with CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for hate speech

CJP’s fight against Hate: FIR filed against Suresh Chavhanke for Hate Speech at Karad event

Mtra Elections: On CJP’s complaint on an MCC violation FIR has been registered against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech

The post CJP files five complaints to Maharashtra State Election Commission, demands FIRs for MCC violation against hate offenders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Event and the Complaint

The Janata-NRC event, organized on October 22, 2024 by the right-wing outfit Sakal Hindu Samaj in Karad, was the venue for Chavhanke’s controversial address. The CJP complaint highlighted that Chavhanke’s speech, laden with Islamophobic and divisive content, not only violated ethical standards of political discourse but also breached the MCC, which governs the conduct of political leaders during the election period.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

In the speech, Chavhanke allegedly claimed that Europe would soon cease to exist due to a Muslim takeover, making inflammatory statements about the growing Muslim population in India. He further propagated the debunked “love jihad” conspiracy theory and stated that India was at risk from “10 crore infiltrators,” referring to Muslims as a threat to Hindu culture and suggesting that they should be expelled from the country. These remarks, according to the CJP, were designed to create fear, manipulate public sentiment, and divide communities along religious lines.

CJP’s complaint, while condemning the hate speech, also referenced a recent FIR filed in Thane against another individual, Kajal Hindustani, for delivering a similar hate speech.

Key Allegations in the Speech

The complaint provides an in-depth analysis of Chavhanke’s speech, citing several excerpts that they argued violated the legal framework meant to ensure a fair and peaceful election process. The speech, according to the complaint, sought to create a sense of insecurity among Hindus by presenting Muslims as a demographic threat, manipulating fears about rising Muslim populations, and linking this to supposed threats like “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad.”

One of the most controversial claims made by Chavhanke was the assertion that India faced a crisis of “infiltrators,” with an estimated 10 crore illegal Muslim immigrants in the country. He further suggested that the growing Muslim population would soon make Hindus a minority in several states by 2048. His remarks regarding Muslims being an “economic burden” on the nation and his demand for their expulsion were, according to the CJP, an incitement to religious hatred.

Chavhnake said in his speech that, “There are 10 crore intruders sitting in India. 1 crore in Maharashtra. 40 lakhs in Mumbai. 3.5 lakhs in your district. Infiltrators, those who came into the country without permission. Illegal citizens. Get this illegal citizen out now. Is it legal to say so or not? Is it morally right or not? Practical or not? Because all this money is a burden on this country from an economic point of view. It is also from a cultural point of view. From a social point of view, India is also burdened by this. Crime is also on very High Scale. And the biggest magic is that they are not a citizen of our country. So, can they stay here? But whoever says to take out those citizens is a patriot. I ask the Muslims of India like this, let’s start from Karad, how many Muslims in Karad, I appeal from here to Shahar Kazi, and the Shahar Maulana today, will you support us to evict the Indian infiltrators the city of Karad?” as per CJP’s complaint.

The video can be accessed through this link: https:
https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/669

Violation of Electoral Laws and the MCC

The MCC is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India to ensure that elections are conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner. It prohibits candidates, political parties, and other participants from using communal language or promoting division among the public. Chavhanke’s speech, as per the CJP’s complaint, clearly violated several provisions of the MCC by inciting communal hatred and promoting a divisive narrative.

In addition, the complaint also pointed out that Chavhanke’s actions violated the Representation of People’s Act (RPA) of 1951, specifically Section 123(3A), which prohibits any attempts to create or promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, caste, or language to influence electoral outcomes. The CJP’s complaint argued that Chavhanke’s speech was an attempt to manipulate voters by appealing to religious sentiments, thereby undermining the democratic process.

The CJP also raised concerns regarding the safety of the Muslim community in Maharashtra, pointing out that such hate speech contributes to a growing atmosphere of intolerance and hostility, which can lead to real-world violence. The complaint urged the Election Commission and law enforcement authorities to take swift action against Chavhanke and other individuals who engage in similar hate speech, particularly during the election period.

CJP’s complaint dated November 8, 2024 can be read here:

Related:

Mtra Elections: On CJP’s complaint on an MCC violation FIR has been registered against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech

CJP Highlights MCC Violation: urges Maharashtra Election Commission to act on Hate Speech

CJP files complaint before Maharashtra Police against serial hate offender Kajal Hindustani

The post Suresh Chavhanke booked under s 123(3A) of RPA for violating MCC following CJP’s complaint appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The second complaint is directed at BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari, who, during a campaign rally in Garhwa, made derogatory and exclusionary comments targeting the Muslim community. Tiwari’s remarks, which explicitly stated that votes from Muslims should be disregarded, violate key provisions of the RPA and MCC. CJP contends that Tiwari’s rhetoric undermines the principles of universal suffrage, religious inclusivity, and fair elections, posing a serious threat to Jharkhand’s social fabric. The complaint demands immediate action from the Jharkhand Election Commission to address these violations, ensure the fair conduct of elections, and prevent further communal rhetoric from influencing the electorate.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

Complaint 1: Madhya Pradesh CM Mohan Yadav for promoting communal divisiveness and electoral misconduct

The complaint filed by CJP highlights inflammatory and communal statements made by Madhya Pradesh’s Chief Minister Mohan Yadav during an election rally in Panki, Ranchi, Jharkhand, on November 8, 2024. CJP states that Yadav’s speech violates both the MCC and the RPA. His comments, which target the Muslim community by labelling them as “Bangladeshi infiltrators” and linking their population growth to threats against Hindu festivals, are seen as divisive and inflammatory. CJP contends that these remarks promote religious polarisation and undermine social harmony, potentially inciting communal violence and fear.

In his speech, CM Yadav claimed that the decline in the Hindu population and the rise of the Muslim population in Jharkhand were the result of the influx of “Bangladeshi infiltrators.” This narrative, according to CJP, wrongly portrays Muslims as outsiders and illegitimate citizens, which creates a divide between religious communities. Additionally, Yadav used the rhetoric of “saving culture” to frame the election as a religious battle, suggesting that Hindu traditions and festivals, such as Diwali and Holi, were under threat. Such language, CJP argues, directly appeals to voters based on their religious identity, violating the MCC’s prohibition on communal appeals during elections.

CJP further asserts that Yadav’s remarks, particularly his invocation of religious symbols and rhetoric like “Jai Shri Ram” and references to Hindu gods, deepen the communal divide and manipulate voters through fear. By associating the Muslim community with threats to Hindu cultural identity, Yadav’s speech is accused of creating an environment of fear and distrust. This, CJP states, shifts the focus away from critical governance issues such as economic development and social welfare, undermining the democratic integrity of the electoral process.

To address these violations, CJP calls for immediate action from the Jharkhand State Election Commission. The complaint urges the Commission to issue a public censure against CM Yadav, prohibit his further participation in Jharkhand’s election campaign, and direct the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to refrain from using communal rhetoric in their campaigns. CJP also requests the deployment of monitoring teams to ensure compliance with the MCC and prevent further divisive statements that could jeopardise the fairness and peace of the electoral process.

The complaint may be read below.

Complaint 2: BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari promoting divisive rhetoric and undermining electoral integrity

The complaint filed by CJP against BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari highlights his communal and inflammatory remarks made during a recent election campaign in Garhwa, which were widely circulated on social media. In the video, Tiwari is heard saying, “If your name is Taslim, I will not take your vote. I am asking for votes from people who worship devi-devta. Even if Taslims and Ahmeds vote, I will get them taken out from the EVM.” These remarks blatantly target the Muslim community, seeking to exclude them from the democratic process based on their religious identity. Such rhetoric directly violates the RPA and the MCC, which are designed to ensure fair and inclusive elections free from religious or communal influence.

CJP’s complaint argues that Tiwari’s remarks violate several provisions of the RPA, including Section 123(2), (3), and (3A). Specifically, Section 123(2) prohibits undue influence over the free exercise of voting rights, which Tiwari’s statement about excluding Muslim votes directly contravenes. Section 123(3) forbids appeals based on religion, and Tiwari’s appeal to only accept votes from those who worship “devi-devta” is a clear religious appeal to voters, undermining the democratic principle that elections should be based on policy, governance, and development, not religious identity. Additionally, Section 123(3A) prohibits corrupt practices, including promoting enmity or hatred between different communities to influence the outcome of elections. Tiwari’s divisive rhetoric, which directly targets a religious group, is a clear violation of this provision as well.

The complaint further elaborates on the harmful impact of Tiwari’s words on Jharkhand’s social fabric, which is home to a diverse population with multiple religious and ethnic communities. Jharkhand has faced communal tensions in the past, and Tiwari’s remarks threaten to exacerbate these divisions at a time when the state should be focusing on inclusive growth and peaceful elections. His statements encourage voters to make decisions based on religious identity, rather than on the merit of candidates or the policies they represent. Such divisive rhetoric undermines the unity of the state, and risks increasing religious tensions, voter exclusion, and disillusionment, particularly among the Muslim community.

Additionally, CJP highlights the risk of voter apathy and the potential for widespread mistrust in the electoral process. Tiwari’s comments create an atmosphere of fear, where specific communities feel alienated and discouraged from participating in the democratic process. By suggesting that Muslim votes would be disregarded, Tiwari undermines the very foundation of universal suffrage and fairness in elections. His remarks also threaten to disrupt the integrity of the Election Commission’s voting process, as they cast doubt on the neutrality of the EVMs and suggest manipulation of the vote count based on religious lines.

Lastly, the complaint urges the Jharkhand Election Commission to take immediate action against Tiwari. It calls for a thorough investigation into his comments, the imposition of penalties including potential disqualification from the election, and the strict monitoring of election campaigns to prevent further violations of the Model Code of Conduct and the Representation of the People Act. The complaint stresses the importance of maintaining a peaceful, inclusive electoral process that prioritises development, governance, and unity over divisive and discriminatory tactics that threaten the democratic fabric of the nation.

The complaint may be read below.

Related:

Hate speech allegations on the campaign trail: CJP Files complaints with State EC against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Jharkhand remarks

CJP moves CEO Maharashtra with three complaints over Suresh Chavhanke’s MCC violations

Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

The post Communal rhetoric in Jharkhand elections: CJP files complaint against MP CM Mohan Yadav and BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its complaints, CJP highlights specific instances where Sarma has allegedly called for support based on communal fears, suggesting that a BJP-led government would protect voters from a perceived demographic threat. Furthermore, Sarma’s rhetoric reportedly included calls for renaming places of Muslim origin, a symbolic action that, as per CJP, stigmatises an entire community and reinforces an “us versus them” mentality. CJP argues that these statements contravene Section 123(3) of the RPA, which prohibits communal appeals during elections. The organisation has urged the ECI to take action, including publicly censuring Sarma, restricting his campaign activities in Jharkhand, and deploying teams to monitor campaign speeches to maintain peace and electoral fairness throughout the state.

Complaint 1: Stoking Divisions through demands of place-name changes, communal remarks

CJP filed a detailed complaint with the State Election Commission against CM Sarma, citing inflammatory speeches he delivered during election campaigns in Jharkhand. CJP argues that Sarma’s speeches promote communal fear and divisiveness, with particular targeting of the Muslim community, which violates the MCC and key provisions in the RPA, specifically Section 123 that prohibits electioneering based on communal or religious sentiments. Delivered between October 24 and November 2, 2024, these speeches allegedly contribute to a charged and hostile environment in Jharkhand, a state with a diverse population that includes Hindu, Muslim, and Adivasi communities which is soon seeing elections.

CJP outlined specific instances of Sarma’s speeches in Palamu, Deoghar, and Jamshedpur, where he spoke of the Muslim population growth as a result of alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Sarma’s rhetoric portrayed Muslims as “infiltrators” who threaten the cultural and demographic balance of Jharkhand, and he linked the BJP’s political victory with a pledge to deport these individuals. In Panki, Palamu, for example, he referred to rising Muslim demographics as a deliberate effort to destabilise local Hindu and Adivasi communities, framing the election as a fight to “drive out infiltrators” to protect “Sanatan Dharma.” CJP argues that these statements lack empirical backing and serve primarily to stoke fears, exacerbating communal divides.

In addition, CJP highlighted that Sarma’s rhetoric included provocative language regarding place names with Muslim origins, such as “Hussainabad.” Sarma implied that such names are incongruous with Jharkhand’s heritage and promised to change them if BJP wins, ostensibly to honor Adivasi leaders instead. This emphasis on renaming as a symbolic act against Muslim influence, CJP contends, promotes a divisive narrative that frames religious communities as incompatible with each other, fostering alienation and distrust. According to the complaint, such rhetoric pits communities against one another, manipulating cultural insecurities to influence voters.

CJP’s complaint emphasises that Sarma’s speeches go beyond electioneering by using fear-based messaging, promoting damaging stereotypes, and casting suspicion on the Muslim community. This tactic, CJP argues, shifts the focus of the electoral discourse from governance and development to communal identity, drawing attention away from vital issues such as infrastructure, economic growth, and social welfare. By invoking communal insecurities and fears, Sarma’s statements discourage voters from making informed decisions on policy matters, steering them instead toward identity-based voting, which undermines democratic integrity and civic cohesion.

In response to these serious concerns, CJP has requested immediate action from the Election Commission to safeguard Jharkhand’s communal harmony and electoral integrity. They urge the Commission to issue a public censure against Sarma, prohibiting him from further campaigning in Jharkhand, and to impose penalties on the BJP for allowing these divisive practices. CJP also suggests that the Commission deploy monitors to review campaign speeches throughout the election period to prevent further hate speech and polarising rhetoric. Through these actions, CJP aims to promote a fair, lawful, and inclusive electoral process that prioritises development over divisive identity politics.

The complaint may be read here.

Complaint 2: Incitement through Anti-Muslim Campaign Rhetoric

This complaint raises serious concerns over alleged inflammatory and communal statements made by CM Sarma during a Jharkhand election campaign rally on November 8, 2024. CJP contends that Sarma’s speech, in which he targeted the Muslim community by labelling them as “infiltrators” and suggesting they pose a threat to local demographics and safety, violates the MCC and sections of the RPA. CJP argues that these statements incite fear, spread religious polarisation, and disrupt communal harmony, undermining democratic principles that elections are meant to uphold.

The complaint specifies several instances in which Sarma used divisive language, describing Muslims as a demographic threat to Jharkhand’s Hindu and Adivasi populations and urging voters to support the BJP as a safeguard against “infiltrators.” These statements, CJP claims, amount to an appeal to religion for electoral gain, which contravenes Section 123(3) of the RPA prohibiting communal appeals in elections. CJP further argues that Sarma’s rhetoric portrays Muslims as illegitimate outsiders, creating a divisive mentality that encourages hate and distrust among communities.

CJP also outlines the potential impact of Sarma’s remarks on Jharkhand’s social fabric and electoral environment, arguing that his language manipulates voters through fear rather than engaging with real issues of governance. The complaint suggests that Sarma’s statements divert political discourse from constructive debate on policies and public welfare, shifting it toward identity politics that divides communities. This approach, CJP warns, undermines the democratic integrity of the electoral process by prioritising religious polarisation over unity and dialogue.

In light of these violations, CJP urges the Jharkhand State Election Commission to take immediate action, including issuing a public censure of Sarma, prohibiting his participation in further campaigning in Jharkhand, and directing the BJP to refrain from communal appeals. Additionally, CJP requests the deployment of monitoring teams to review campaign speeches across Jharkhand to ensure compliance with the MCC and maintain an environment of peace and fairness throughout the electoral process.

The complaint may be read here.

Related:

CJP moves CEO Maharashtra with three complaints over Suresh Chavhanke’s MCC violations

Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

The post Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP’s complaints emphasized that Chavhanke’s speeches promoted Islamophobia, religious intolerance, and harmful stereotypes. By spreading dangerous narratives such as “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and baseless fears of demographic change, he sought to polarize voters along religious lines, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. CJP urged the CEO Maharashtra to take immediate action against Chavhanke to uphold the principles of free, fair, and peaceful elections, ensuring that such hate speech does not go unpunished.

• Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune [November 7, 2024]

On November 7, 2024, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for his inflammatory and divisive speech delivered on October 24, 2024, during the Janta NRC event. In his speech, Chavhanke claimed that 10 crore “infiltrators” should be removed from India, citing alleged court support, and referred to Muslim politicians as “traitors.” He also made derogatory remarks about Muslim-majority areas in Pimpri-Chinchwad, calling them “mini-Pakistan” and “no-go zones.” This speech constitutes a clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which governs the conduct of political parties and candidates during elections to ensure fairness and a peaceful electoral process. Suresh Chavhanke said that “Now where did the figure of ten crores come from? Some journalist friends will be here. Some did not come here. But those are the two Namakharams of Hyderabad, traitors. Whether they watch anything else or not. They may miss a prayer. But he never misses what Suresh Chavhanke says at 8 PM.”

He further added that “Perhaps Hindus in India know me less. At that time, we were going from village to village. But friends I was telling you that defined. We won the court battle.”

“I know now. I asked when I was coming here, what happened in this place in Pimpri, Chinchwad and also Kundalwadi, Chikhli, Bhosari, Nigdi. No more Mini, no more Mini-Pakistan. There is a place in Mumbai. If you write the same name Pakistan, Pakistan on the postcard, still will reach there” he remarked.

CJP mentioned in its complaint that Chavhanke’s remarks were designed to stoke communal tensions by polarizing voters along religious lines and creating an atmosphere of hostility between Hindus and Muslims. By labeling Muslim-majority areas as foreign territories loyal to Pakistan, Chavhanke’s speech falsely portrayed Indian Muslims as a threat to national security and integrity. This dangerous rhetoric not only undermines the principles of free and fair elections but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes, portraying a specific religious group as outsiders and traitors.

CJP’s complaint to CEO Maharashtra on November 7, 2024 can be read here

• Ahmednagar [November 5, 2024]

On November 5, 2024, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint with the CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) with his hate-filled speech in Ahmednagar on October 20, 2024. In his speech, Chavhanke made derogatory remarks against the LGBTQ+ community, describing them as a propaganda tool aimed at undermining Hindu families and labeling them as part of “cultural terrorism.” He also made false claims about Christians targeting Ahmednagar for conversion efforts and stated that the phrase “Allah hu Akbar” was a supremacist statement designed to provoke Hindus. These comments were made during the Ahilyabai Holkar Anniversary celebration, a politically sensitive time during the election period.

As per CJP’s complaint, Chavhanke stated that “Men marry men, male marry male. A woman should marry a woman. Have you heard of LGBTQ? What going on is this? This is disinformation. Why should the family system be broken, while Hinduism and our Hindustan is surviving today beyond the thousand years reckoning of Islam. And if anything, the main reason for its survival is the Hindu family system and the contribution of women to it is the greatest.”

CJP’s complaint emphasized that Chavhanke’s speech not only mischaracterized Muslims, Christians, and LGBTQ+ identities but also promoted dangerous misinformation and hate. By injecting religious intolerance into the political discourse, Chavhanke’s statements violated the MCC’s guidelines, which are meant to ensure free and fair elections. His rhetoric fostered division and fear, equating the survival of Hinduism with the suppression of other communities. CJP called for immediate action, urging the CEO to address this inflammatory speech and its potential impact on the electoral process.

CJP complaint to CEO Maharashtra on November 5, 2024 can be read here

• Karad, Satara [November 8, 2024]

On November 8, 2024, CJP filed another complaint with the CEO Maharashtra regarding the violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by Suresh Chavhanke for his inflammatory remarks delivered at the Janata-NRC event in Karad, Satara, Maharashtra on October 22, 2024. Chavhanke’s speech, marked by Islamophobic and divisive rhetoric, directly contravened the MCC, which is designed to ensure a peaceful, fair, and unbiased electoral process. During his address, Chavhanke made several false and harmful statements, including claiming that Europe would cease to exist in five years due to a Muslim takeover, promoting the baseless conspiracy of ‘love jihad,’ and alleging that India faces a crisis with 10 crore “infiltrators” threatening Hindu culture. He further warned that rising Muslim populations would soon render Hindus a minority, stoking fears of demographic change. Chavhanke also controversially praised Myanmar’s Wirathu for expelling Rohingyas and highlighted the refusal to vaccinate them against COVID-19.

Chavhanke stated in its complaint that “What will be the biggest problem of India at this time out of which Love Jihad, Land Jihad, Waqf Board, Terrorism is the cause of all the problems, if there is any reason, then the growing population of Muslims are in India. You say this is going on with democracy, isn’t it? Democracy has increased it. “But the population ratio kept changing. Pakistan was given in the name of Islam. It’s time to give Pakistan again, many states were given, 9 states, Hindu minority in 2011. Census 2021 has not been done, if it is not done now, there will be minorities in 13 states. In the year 2048, it will become a minority. What is today 2024. After how many years, exactly 24 years. It will be appropriate for everyone sitting here to see 24 years” as per CJP’s complaint to CEO Maharashtra.

CJP’s complaint emphasized that Chavhanke’s statements were not only Islamophobic but also sought to incite religious fear and hatred. By linking the growing Muslim population in India to fabricated threats like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and terrorism, Chavhanke portrayed Muslims as a threat to the nation’s security and social fabric. His remarks were designed to stoke fear of Muslims “outbreeding” Hindus, furthering the dangerous narrative that India was on the brink of becoming a Muslim-majority state. Through this rhetoric, Chavhanke attempted to polarize voters along religious lines, undermining the democratic process and the integrity of the election.

CJP complaint to CEO Maharashtra on November 8, 2024 can be read here

However, CJP, in its complaints, highlighted a clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act, emphasizing the importance of political parties and candidates refraining from actions that deepen existing divisions or foster animosity between communities. Suresh Chavhanke’s inflammatory rhetoric, which included portraying the religious slogan “Allah hu Akbar” as a threat to other communities and making derogatory remarks against the LGBTQ+ community, sought to incite fear and mobilize support in ways that the MCC explicitly aimed to prevent. These divisive and hate-driven attempts to manipulate the electorate along religious lines directly violated the electoral code and called for immediate legal and electoral intervention. CJP strongly urged the CEO Maharashtra to take cognizance of the enclosed video, register a case against Chavhanke, the event organizers, and all identified perpetrators, and ensure their arrest for cognizable offenses under the relevant sections.

Related:

Suresh Chavhanke: The face of Hate Journalism

CJP moves NCM against Suresh Chavhanke for his Islamophobic remarks

Hate Watch: Suresh Chavkhane asks Muslim women to marry Hindu men

The post CJP moves CEO Maharashtra with three complaints over Suresh Chavhanke’s MCC violations appeared first on SabrangIndia.