Responding to a wave of allegedly incendiary rhetoric, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed multiple complaints across Maharashtra against pro-right-wing leader, BJP MLA, and Cabinet Minister for Fisheries & Ports Development, Nitesh Narayan Rane. These complaints stemmed from a series of inflammatory and divisive speeches Rane had delivered in Kundal, Sindhudurg on February 8; Sawant wadi, Sindhudurg on February 19; Wagholi, Pune on February 5; and Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20.
In its submissions, CJP contended that as an organisation promoting communal harmony, it felt compelled to inquire whether appropriate action was being taken in accordance with directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.
CJP urged authorities to adhere to these directions, which specifically ordered detailed investigations and prosecutions concerning hate speech, to ensure such divisive rhetoric did not go unchecked. CJP also highlighted the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan judgment, which emphasised that those in positions of influence bore a greater responsibility for their words and actions and must be aware of the potential meanings and impacts of their words.
February 20, 2025 – Nanijdham, Ratnagiri Speech
The series of complaints included one filed on March 28, 2025 with the Superintendent of Police and the Collector & District Magistrate of Ratnagiri against Nitesh Rane for his divisive and communal rhetoric at a public felicitation event organised by Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Shri Swami Narendracharayaji Maharaj in Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20, 2025. During this speech, Rane had delivered a deeply problematic anti-Muslim hate speech. He had propagated baseless conspiracies such as ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ terms that CJP noted had been repeatedly used to spread harm and mistrust towards the Muslim community. Further escalating his rhetoric, Rane had used Islamophobic slurs like “jihadis” and targeted religious sites, specifically Mazars and Dargahs, claiming that they “just pop up anywhere.”
CJP asserted in its complaint that, “This inflammatory language, delivered in a public setting in Nanijdham, posed a serious threat to communal harmony and deserved immediate attention. Rane’s remarks spread dangerous narratives.” The complaint stated that a disturbing video of Nitesh Rane’s speech had surfaced, which could be perceived as encouraging hatred and attempting to justify it under the guise of religion. At the event, Rane had made claims regarding the alleged crime of “love jihad.”
However, CJP pointed out that there were no verified statistics or credible evidence supporting the existence of such a phenomenon. He had further escalated his rhetoric with conspiracies of “love jihad” and “land jihad,” calling Muslims “jihadis,” and attacking religious sites such as Mazars and Dargahs. CJP also noted that Rane had referred to the efforts of certain individuals to “Islamise” India, reinforcing harmful and unfounded myths about Muslims, and stressed that it was crucial that the police and authorities took stringent action to prevent further harm to the peace and harmony of the nation.
CJP detailed how elements in the speech delivered constituted hate speech, aligning with the elements outlined in the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan judgment. Rane’s speech, CJP argued, employed demonising language and promoted unfounded conspiracy theories, particularly with terms like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and references akin to “Ghar Wapsi.” By framing these terms as part of a widespread and deliberate effort by Muslims to “Islamise” India, Rane, according to CJP, perpetuated the myth of a planned Islamic takeover, further stirring fear and mistrust among communities.
CJP further contended that Rane’s speech also crossed the line into direct threats and incitement to hatred. His call for a “Jihad-free coastline” and an anti-conversion law were seen by CJP as not only divisive but also potentially having the effect of restricting individuals’ freedom to make personal choices. The statement that the Maharashtra government would “take a firm stand without any Hindutva-based bias” in fighting against “illegal activities,” which included the building of mazars and tombs, was highlighted by CJP as clearly targeting Muslims and fostering an atmosphere where violence and discrimination against the Muslim community could be justified under the guise of national protection.
The copy of complaint dated March 28, 2025 can be accessed here:
February 5, 2025 – Wagholi, Pune Speech
Prior to the Nanijdham incident, on February 5, 2025, Rane had delivered another contentious speech at Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir in Wagholi, Pune. Consequently, on March 18, CJP further approached the ADG (Law &Order), Maharashtra, and Pune Police against this divisive hate speech. At this event, Rane had spread anti-Muslim hate speech, perpetuating the conspiracies of “land jihad” and “love jihad,” and falsely claiming that Muslims aimed to turn India into an Islamic state. In his inflammatory speech, Rane had urged Hindus to rent houses exclusively to fellow Hindus, warning that “it starts with one Aslam, and then you have a hundred Aslams.”
CJP argued this rhetoric served to demonise Muslims, portraying them as a threat to Hindu society. He had specifically targeted the practice of azaan, the Muslim call to prayer, claiming that if Hindus rented homes to Muslims, “in no time, they will be there in hordes, and next thing you know, the azaan is blaring five times a day.” CJP highlighted this statement as not only spreading fear but also perpetuating the false narrative that Muslims were attempting to impose their religious practices on non-Muslims.
CJP asserted that Rane had openly encouraged housing discrimination, an anti-Constitutional move that violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, by telling the audience: “Just declare that you don’t rent to non-Hindus.”
This, CJP contended, incited segregation and exclusion based on religion. Later, he had continued pushing the unfounded conspiracy of “love jihad,” reinforcing baseless claims that Muslims were deliberately targeting Hindu women for conversion and marriage. CJP noted these dangerous, divisive narratives fueled communal hatred and further polarised society.
In his speech, Rane had said, “When the police conducted their inquiry and asked what exactly they were plotting here, they responded by saying that their goal is to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, and all their efforts are directed towards achieving that.”
CJP argued that this statement fabricated an entire conspiracy theory that portrayed Muslims as systematically working to take over the nation. CJP described the allegation of a coordinated Islamic effort to turn India into an Islamic state by 2047 as completely unfounded, with no evidence to support such a claim, and designed to exploit fear and misrepresentation, creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion toward an entire religious group.
Further, against Rane’s statement with an exaggerated and dehumanising portrayal of Muslims, stating, “Because in the beginning, only one comes. Just one—someone named Aslam. And then he will bring 100 more Aslams along with him. I can give you at least 100 examples where one arrived, and soon there were 100 more. He will start cooking food that we don’t prefer, and because of that smell, the Hindu community will begin to leave,” CJP informed the Pune Police that this statement painted Muslims as a threat to the cultural and social fabric of Hindu communities.
CJP explained that the speaker used fear-based language, associating the arrival of Muslims with the destruction of Hindu lifestyle by focusing on trivial issues like food and religious practices, thereby dehumanising Muslims and intensifying community polarisation.
The copy of complaint dated March 18, 2025 can be accessed here:
February 8, 2025 – Kundal, Sindhudurg and February 19, 2025 – Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg Speeches
Earlier in February, Rane had delivered similar speeches in the Sindhudurg district. On March 7, CJP filed a joint complaint with the Superintendent of Police and the Collector & District Magistrate, Sindhudurg, against Nitesh Rane’s divisive hate speeches in Kundal on February 8, 2025, and Sawantwadi on February 19, 2025.
In its complaint, CJP mentioned that these speeches had been delivered at events organised by right-wing outfits. On February 8, 2025, Rane had spoken at the “Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan” organised by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) in Kundal, and on February 19, 2025, at the “Shivjanmostav” event organised by VHP-Bajrang Dal in Sawantwadi. CJP stated these speeches, delivered in different locations across Sindhudurg district, contained several alarming and dangerous elements of hate speech that merited urgent attention.
In his speech delivered at and reported from Kundal, Rane had spoken about what he termed “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” terms which CJP noted had been coined and repeatedly used to generate a sentiment of harm towards the Muslim community. Rane had said, “how far have these Islamisation and Jihadisation people reached? How much has their courage grown? You all should imagine this. You people should be able to guess where the danger is from.” His speech, CJP argued, was also symptomatic of a dangerous rhetoric that provoked local communities into hostilities against some of their neighbours (Muslims).
In a similar vein, during his speech at Sawantwadi, Rane had continued with stigmatising slurs and stereotypes, stating: “If anyone in this Sawantwadi, this Sindhudurga, keep evil eye at my Hindu religion, just give me a call, I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday.” He had also asserted, “By 2047, there are plans to make our country, India, an Islamic nation. We must not fall victim to this.”
CJP described these misconceived and provocative statements, unsubstantiated by fact and delivered by a sitting MLA and Cabinet Minister, as deeply concerning. CJP contended that Rane’s warning in the Sawantwadi speech was not only a call to arms but also a clear incitement to communal hatred, with the phrase “I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday” being an explicit threat targeting Muslims, who traditionally observe prayers on Fridays.
This, CJP argued, aligned with hate speech, as it singled out a religious group and implicitly threatened them with harm.
The copy of complaint dated March 7, 2025 can be accessed here:
Rane’s speech served no aim other than to sow division and fuel communal hatred: CJP
CJP strongly contended that Rane’s speeches in Kundal and Sawantwadi exhibited numerous traits that were clearly indicative of hate speech. These speeches, CJP stated, targeted one section of the Indian population, the Muslims pointedly, propagating certain communal narratives that stirred resentment and incited fear. As per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, such speech fell under the category of hate speech, as it sought to promote hatred against a particular group without any legitimate purpose. Rane’s inflammatory statements, CJP argued, met these criteria, as they served no aim other than to sow division and fuel communal hatred.
CJP referenced the Amish Devgan (2021) judgment, where a bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Sanjay Khanna emphasised that hate speech was not merely an expression but an act intended to foster hatred or violence against a specific community, requiring subjective intent to target a group or class of people. The Court had further reinforced the responsibility of persons of influence, such as Rane, given the reach and authority they possessed over the public.
Supreme Court’s Decision in Amish Devgan v Union of India (2021)
Across its complaints, CJP urged authorities that as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1, Rane’s speech fell under the category of hate speech, as it sought to promote hatred against a particular group without any legitimate purpose.
CJP argued Rane’s inflammatory statements met these criteria. The complaints highlighted that in the Amish Devgan judgment, the Court had emphasised that hate speech was not merely an expression but an act intended to foster hatred or violence against a specific community and clarified that for speech to be categorised as hate speech, there must be subjective intent to target a group or class of people. The Court had further reinforced the responsibility of persons of influence, such as Rane, given the reach and authority they possessed over the public.
CJP stressed the Court’s ruling that individuals in positions of power must be especially cautious of the messages they conveyed, understanding their potential to incite hatred and social discord. The complaints noted the Court observed that the object of criminalising hate speech was to protect the dignity of an individual and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups. In this context, the Court had explained that ‘dignity’ “refers to a person’s basic entitlement as a member of a society in good standing, his status as a social equal and as bearer of human rights and constitutional entitlements.”
Rane holds considerable sway over public opinion
In light of the Supreme Court decision, CJP argued that Nitesh Rane, as a sitting MLA and Cabinet Minister, held considerable sway over public opinion, and his position of influence amplified the impact of his words. By making remarks that explicitly targeted Muslims and encouraged anti-Muslim sentiment, Rane, according to CJP, not only flouted the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination but also directly contravened the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. His speeches were described as emblematic of the kind of rhetoric the Court had cautioned against, as they incited communal hatred without any valid or legitimate message.
Failure to uphold duty of responsibility
In its complaints, CJP mentioned that Nitesh Rane’s speeches, such as the one in Wagholi, represented a direct violation of his duty as a public figure, as outlined in the Amish Devgan judgment (2021). The Supreme Court had emphasised that individuals with substantial influence must exercise heightened responsibility, as their words could stir public sentiments and foster division. Rane’s rhetoric, CJP argued, filled with such provocative and divisive language, showed a blatant disregard for this responsibility. As a leader, Rane should have been aware of the harmful impact his words would have on the public, especially given his influence as an elected representative.
Apex Court mandated video recording of such events
In its complaints addressing the proliferation of hate speech in Maharashtra, CJP consistently highlighted the Supreme Court’s recent and explicit directives aimed at its prevention and prosecution. CJP underscored key judicial interventions, such as the order dated February 3, 2023, concerning an event by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai. On that occasion, the apex court had mandated video recording of the event, had secured an undertaking from the Maharashtra government that permission would be conditional upon no hate speech being delivered, and had directed law enforcement to utilise Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for preventive action if warranted.
Furthermore, CJP pointed to the Supreme Court’s proceedings on January 17, 2024, where the bench had expressed its dismay at the necessity for repeated petitions and had directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Yavatmal, Maharashtra (along with Raipur, Chhattisgarh) to take ‘appropriate steps,’ including the installation of CCTV cameras, to ensure no incitement to hate speech occurred during planned rallies. These specific Supreme Court mandates, CJP emphasised, formed a central pillar of its arguments, emphasising the judiciary’s expectation of proactive and diligent law enforcement against individuals and groups disseminating hate.
Circulars issued by DGP Maharashtra in February 2023 and May 2023 urging strict action on hate speech
CJP’s complaints further elaborated that these Supreme Court pronouncements had spurred administrative responses within Maharashtra, notably citing circulars issued by the Director General of Police (DGP) in February and April 2023. The February 2, 2023 circular, referencing a Supreme Court order from January 13, 2023, had directed all Unit Commanders to ensure suo moto action (under IPC Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505) when hate speech occurred, even without a formal complaint.
The subsequent circular on April 3, 2023, had detailed comprehensive measures for maintaining law and order during agitations and speeches, including mandatory meetings with organisers, audio-video recording of events, and pre-emptive intelligence gathering.
In all its submissions, CJP systematically referred to the foundational Supreme Court order in Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940/2022), which had mandated suo moto action against hate speech, and its crucial expansion in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (April 28, 2023), directing all States and Union Territories to register FIRs against hate speech offenders irrespective of their religion.
By invoking these judicial directives, administrative instructions, and pertinent legal precedents such as Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India and Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, CJP contended that the persistent failure of authorities to curb inflammatory rhetoric, which often instilled fear within minority communities and was amplified by social media, represented a significant contravention of established legal and constitutional safeguards.
Related:
Understand what constitutes Hate Speech
CJP lodges additional police complaints against Nitesh Rane and Ashwini Upadhyay for hate speeches
Maharashtra: Six more complaints filed against hate offenders by CJP