Over a dozen residents of Mira Road submitted a written complaint to the senior PI of the Naya Nagar Police Station, Vilas Supe in Mira Road demanding registration of a First Infoirmation Report (FIR), thorough and fair investigation and prompt legal action against Geeta Jain and Nitesh Rane, both elected MLAs of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Both have been widely held responsible for unncessaruly stoking communal fires over the Ram Temple event at Ayodhya on January 2. They met the senior PI at about 5 p.m. on Saturday, February 3. Speaking to the local residents, SabrangIndia was informed that it was with some reluctance that the senior PI accepted the complaint and gave an acknowledgement.
The complaint has been signed by Sadique Basha, Adv. Sanjay Pande, Sukhdev Banbanci, Saboor Ansari, Jhulmi Ram Yadav(Writer), Vinod Chand and Saroja Rajeshwari.
The detailed complaint states that on January 22, motorcycles adorned with saffron flags converged upon Naya Nagar, Mira Road, with the intent to incite fear and inflict harm upon local residents. Despite efforts by law enforcement to contain the situation, instances of vandalism and violence persisted, as evidenced by reported vehicular damage and other acts of aggression. The dissemination of hate speech and incendiary rhetoric by elected representatives, notably MLA Geeta Jain, further exacerbated tensions and contributed to the breakdown of law and order.
Furthermore, on January 23, false narratives perpetuated by MLA Geeta Bharat Jain regarding barricades purportedly erected by Muslims and discriminatory practices against Hindus only served to inflame communal tensions. Her misleading remarks and baseless assertions during interviews with media outlets, wherein she falsely alleged that Muslims were demanding “10-15 minutes (freehand),” only added fuel to the fire. Moreover, her statement claiming, “We are greater in numbers, if they need 10-15 minutes, we only need 5 minutes which will be good enough for them,” lacks any substantiation and further aggravates the situation.
Following her hate speech, on the next day, January 24, mobs on bikes with saffron flags went on a spree and vandalised shops of Muslim establishments. She demanded that the barricades, which were put up by the police administration to ensure law and order, be removed.
It is deeply troubling that despite arrests made in connection with the initial altercation on January 21st, no substantive action has been taken against those responsible for subsequent acts of violence and vandalism on January 22 and 24. The individuals behind these reprehensible acts, including MLA Geeta Jain and MLA Nitesh Rane, must be held accountable for their role in inciting communal strife and perpetuating hate speech.
The complaint demands that the police must:
- Conduct a thorough investigation into the incidents of violence and vandalism on January 22 and 24 and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
- Initiate legal proceedings against MLA Geeta Jain and MLA Nitesh Rane under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, including but not limited to:
- Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
- Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Section 505: Making, publishing, or circulating any statement, rumour, or report with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community.
- Section 427: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards.
- Section 186: Obstructing public servants in discharge of public functions.
Provide reassurance to the residents of our community that their safety and security are paramount and that measures are being taken to prevent further incidents of communal tension and lawlessness.
Finally drawing a distinction between free speech and hate speech, residents of Mira Road have quoted substantively from several judgements of the Supreme Court of India on the issue, including recent directives to ensure that guilty politicians are prosecuted.
The entire complaint may be read here:
Date : February 3, 2024
To,
Senior PI, Nayanagar Police Station, Vilas Supe
CC: Commissioner of Police
Mira-Bhayandar Vasai Virar
Subject: Urgent Demand for FIR against MLA Geeta Jain and MLA Nitesh Rane
Respected Sir,
We write to you with great concern regarding the distressing series of events that have recently unfolded in our city, particularly the concerning incidents of communal tension and lawlessness that occurred on January 21, 22, and 24. It is imperative that immediate action is taken to address the root cause of these events and ensure justice for the affected community.
On January 21, 2024 an altercation between two groups escalated into a situation of heightened communal tensions, resulting in vehicular damage and minor injuries. While the prompt response of the police administration in barricading and sealing off the affected area was commendable, it proved insufficient in quelling the subsequent wave of violence and unrest.
Subsequently, on January 22, motorcycles adorned with saffron flags converged upon Naya Nagar, Mira Road, with the intent to incite fear and inflict harm upon local residents. Despite efforts by law enforcement to contain the situation, instances of vandalism and violence persisted, as evidenced by reported vehicular damage and other acts of aggression. The dissemination of hate speech and incendiary rhetoric by elected representatives, notably MLA Geeta Jain, further exacerbated tensions and contributed to the breakdown of law and order.
Furthermore, on January 23, false narratives perpetuated by MLA Geeta Bharat Jain regarding barricades purportedly erected by Muslims and discriminatory practices against Hindus only served to inflame communal tensions. Her misleading remarks and baseless assertions during interviews with media outlets, wherein she falsely alleged that Muslims were demanding “10-15 minutes (freehand),” only added fuel to the fire. Moreover, her statement claiming, “We are greater in numbers, if they need 10-15 minutes, we only need 5 minutes which will be good enough for them,” lacks any substantiation and further aggravates the situation.
Following her hate speech, on the next day, January 24, mobs on bikes with saffron flags went on a spree and vandalised shops of Muslim establishments. She demanded that the barricades, which were put up by the police administration to ensure law and order, be removed.
It is deeply troubling that despite arrests made in connection with the initial altercation on January 21st, no substantive action has been taken against those responsible for subsequent acts of violence and vandalism on January 22 and 24. The individuals behind these reprehensible acts, including MLA Geeta Jain and MLA Nitesh Rane, must be held accountable for their role in inciting communal strife and perpetuating hate speech.
Therefore, we urge you to take immediate action to address the following demands:
- Conduct a thorough investigation into the incidents of violence and vandalism on January 22 and 24 and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
- Initiate legal proceedings against MLA Geeta Jain and MLA Nitesh Rane under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, including but not limited to:
- Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
- Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Section 505: Making, publishing, or circulating any statement, rumour, or report with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community.
- Section 427: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards.
- Section 186: Obstructing public servants in discharge of public functions.
Provide reassurance to the residents of our community that their safety and security are paramount and that measures are being taken to prevent further incidents of communal tension and lawlessness.
Sir you must be aware of recent judgements and jurisprudence from the Honourable Supreme Court that clearly distinguish between hate speech and free speech.
Free Speech is not Hate Speech, Sir as the latter (Hate Speech) often misuses positions of power and privilege to further marginalise and stigmatise a section that is structurally, socially and politically disadvantaged. Unchecked proliferation of such telecasts by the electronic media have the deleterious impact of misinforming and prejudicing public discourse, often as a precursor to social ostracization and even violence.
Honourable Supreme Court on Hate Speech:
- In the case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 OF 2020 decided on December 7, 2020], the Supreme Court held thus,
“The unity and integrity of the nation cannot be overlooked and slighted, as the acts that ‘promote’ or are ‘likely’ to ‘promote’ divisiveness, alienation and schematism do directly and indirectly impinge on the diversity and pluralism, and when they are with the objective and intent to cause public disorder or to demean dignity of the targeted groups, they have to be dealt with as per law….Such threats not only insidiously weaken virtue and superiority of diversity, but cut-back and lead to demands depending on the context and occasion, for suppression of freedom to express and speak on the ground of reasonableness. Freedom and rights cannot extend to create public disorder or armour those who challenge integrity and unity of the country or promote and incite violence.”
“In this context, it is necessary to draw a distinction between ‘free speech’ which includes the right to comment, favour or criticise government policies; and ‘hate 10 speech’ creating or spreading hatred against a targeted community or group….The object of criminalising the latter type of speech is to protect the dignity (as explained above) and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups regardless of caste, creed, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, linguistic preference etc.” (Para 54)
- In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (writ petition (c) no. 157 of 2013) decided on March 12, 2014, (Para 7), the Supreme Court had unambiguously stated:
Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy. (Para 7)
- The Law Commission Report, 2017 stated that “hate speech has the potential of provoking individuals or society to commit acts of terrorism, genocides, ethnic cleansing etc. Such speech is considered outside the realm of protective discourse. Indisputably, offensive speech has real and devastating effects on people’s lives and risks their health and safety. It is harmful and divisive for communities and hampers social progress. If left unchecked hate speech can severely affect right to life of every individual.” (Chapter VI, Para 6.5)
- In the Sudarshan News case (Firoz Iqbal Khan v UOI – WP[CIV] NO. 956/2020]), the Supreme Court had observed that, “the edifice of a democratic society committed to the rule of law under a regime of constitutional rights, values and duties is founded on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting pot of civilizations, cultures, religions and languages. Any attempt to vilify a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavour by this Court as the custodian of constitutional values constitutional values demands nothing less.”
We would be happy to provide these Orders to you if so required/needed.
We trust that you will give due consideration to these urgent matters and take appropriate action to uphold the rule of law and ensure the well-being of our community. Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Sincerely,
- Sadique Basha
- Adv. Sanjay Pande
- Sukhdev Banbanci
- Saboor Ansari
- Alim Shaikh
- Ahesan ISAF
- Chand Shaikh
- Jhulmi Ram Yadav
- Vinod Chand
- Saroja Rajeshwari