Court orders FIR against activist who accused Adityanath of hate speech

The court ordered an FIR against activist Parvez Parvaz, who was the petitioner in the 2007 hate speech case and claimed that Yogi’s speech caused the Gorakhpur riot. He was accused of submitting a ‘doctored video’ as evidence.

Yogi Adityanath
Gorakhpur: A local Gorakhpur court has ordered the registration of an FIR against the activist filed a hate speech case against now Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath. Mostly being seen as a political vendetta by the BJP, the court ordered an FIR against activist Parvez Parvaz, who was the petitioner in the 2007 hate speech case.
The order came after the investigating agency told the court that “a doctored video” was submitted as evidence.
Chief judicial magistrate (CJM), Nusrat Khan ordered the police to lodge an FIR against activist Pervez Parvaz, who is already serving jail sentence in a gang-rape case lodged against him in June this year.
“Parvaz had filed a petition against the then-Gorakhpur MP Adityanath and four others, accusing Adityanath of giving hate speech and allegedly inciting communal violence in Gorakhpur after a person was killed during Muharram procession in 2007. The case was handed over to the CBCID and during investigation, Parvaz had produced a DVD of the speech as evidence. After the forensic test, CBCID submitted its final report, which was challenged by Parvaz in the high court. However, the court rejected his plea and now the CJM ordered an FIR against Parvaz,” Hindustan Times reported.
BJP leader Shiv Pratap Shukla (now minister of state, finance), MLA Radha Mohan Das Aggarwal, Anju Chowdhary (former mayor and now a member of women commission) and Dr YD Singh, former MLC, were also booked for the 2007 riots.
“The court was apprised that the DVD was edited to show the content as hate speech, after which it passed an order to lodge an FIR against the complainant,” said Ashok Kumar Singh, who appeared for the petitioner.
The video was allegedly tampered with and was used to exonerate Adityanath and others from the case soon after he assumed charge as the chief minister in 2017.
In 2007, Parvez Parvaz, who then worked as a journalist, and his associate Asad Hayat, had alleged in the police complaint that provocative speech by Adityanath led to the riot.
“All these years, the case was pending in court and the then-SP government did not allow the prosecution of the accused. Soon after the formation of the BJP government in May 2017, the chief secretary denied permission to prosecute the accused. Later, the Allahabad high court too rejected a plea seeking permission to prosecute Adityanath. Earlier this year, Parvaz and Hayat moved the Supreme Court demanding a probe by an independent agency,” the report said.
Parvaz and his associate Jumman, a faith healer, were arrested after a local woman accused them of raping her. Parvaz dismissed the allegations, saying he was being framed for fighting against injustice.
During investigations, the charges against Parvaz and Jumman were found to be fake and a closure report was also submitted to the court but it was rejected and a fresh investigation was ordered by the then SSP Shalabh Mathur.
In the fresh probe, the police claimed that there were corroborative evidence against the accused and the medical examination of the victim confirmed the sexual assault. He was subsequently sent to jail.
“Imagine, Pervez is a second accused in the rape case, but he was denied bail, while the main accused is out. Most witnesses have said that there was no such incident at the spot where the complainant has accused the two of rape,” Syed Farman Naqvi, counsel for Parvaz said, adding that the police arrested him just because the complainant named one Pervez in her FIR.
Speaking to The Wire, Syed Farman Naqvi, counsel for Pervez, asked why the Delhi lab did not take direct voice samples of Adityanath. “Nobody stopped the lab from doing so. It was a minor loophole in the DFR that became the state government’s defence,” Naqvi said.
He said the police did not give any explanation why the activist was arrested. It was only months later that the complainant identified the activist as her alleged rapist. “We think that this is a case of political vendetta, nothing else. The woman has been forced to implicate Parvaz Pervez in the matter,” said Naqvi.
Parvaz is likely to face another charge of doctoring evidence after the court order.



Related Articles