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 Supreme Court had earlier directed authorities to take immediate action against such hate speeches and events, even if no formal complaint was made. However, despite clear announcements about the “Dharam Sansad” and its harmful content being shared publicly, the authorities have failed to act. This petition calls for the Court to intervene and ensure that the law is enforced, so as to prevent any further spread of hate and violence.

Not only through legal means, many religious organisations have also condemned the scheduled event. The Satya Dharam Samvad (SDS), a collective of 62 prominent Hindu Acharyas, has also spoken against the divisive nature of the proposed “Dharam Sansad,” calling for its rejection and emphasising the need for unity, tolerance, and interfaith dialogue. In a statement, they expressed concern over the misuse of religion to incite hatred and violence, reaffirming that Hinduism, with its core principles of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions), stands for peace, acceptance, and harmony.

Satya Dharam Samvad condemns the “Dharam Sansad” and calls for unity

The Satya Dharam Samvad (SDS), an organisation of Hindu Acharyas, has called upon Hindu religious leaders and organisations to reject the divisive “Dharam Sansad” proposed by the Yati Narsinghanand Foundation, scheduled to take place from Tuesday to Saturday at the Shiv-Shakti temple complex in Ghaziabad’s Dasna. In a joint statement signed by 62 Acharyas, including prominent figures like Swami Raghavendra, Acharya Bajrang, Mahant, Prof. Anantanand Rambachan, Ashok Maharaj Kamble, and Ashok Sangpa, the SDS emphasised the importance of promoting unity, tolerance, and dialogue over hatred and division.

The statement expressed deep concern over the increasing misuse of religion to spread violence and discord, urging a return to the foundational values of Hinduism – Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions). It affirmed that Hinduism has always stood for peace, acceptance, and harmony, rejecting caste-based divisions and any form of oppression. True spirituality, the signatories asserted, lies in recognising the divine presence in all beings and fostering mutual respect.

The SDS also criticised the “World Religion Convention” and the provocative speeches targeting specific faiths that are being promoted as part of the upcoming event. These actions, they argued, are a departure from the true essence of Sanatan Dharma, undermining its spiritual sanctity while threatening the harmony of the nation. The statement firmly condemned words or actions that promote hatred, disrespect other religions, or incite violence, calling such behaviour completely at odds with Hindu principles.

Calling for interfaith understanding and peaceful coexistence, the SDS urged religious leaders to oppose the exploitation of religion for political or divisive purposes. They also called on the authorities to take accountability and ensure that religion is not misused to fuel division. The signatories appealed for unity, urging Hindus and people of all faiths to come together with kindness and mutual respect, recognising that India’s true strength lies in its diversity and shared harmony.

The press release may be read here.

Details of the petition

Background: The petition had been filed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 129 of the Constitution, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition arises from the deliberate and wilful disobedience of two specific orders passed by the Supreme Court: the order dated October 21, 2022 in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 940/2022) and the order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 943/2021). These orders had directed state authorities to take suo- motu action against hate speech or activities that attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), even in the absence of formal complaints. The orders further clarified that any hesitation or delay in complying with these directions would amount to contempt of court.

The petition states that despite these explicit directives, the petition highlights that the authorities in Uttar Pradesh, including the Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate, and Director General of Police, have failed to act against an upcoming event titled “Dharam Sansad,” scheduled to take place from December 17 to 21 at Shiv Shakti Dham, Dasna, Ghaziabad. The event, organised by the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Foundation, has been widely publicised through a website titled worldreligiousconvention.org. The website and the event itself are rooted in incendiary, communal content that openly propagates hate against the Muslim community, posing a direct threat to constitutional values of secularism and fraternity. The contempt petition seeks immediate judicial intervention to prevent this event and hold the respondents accountable for their failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s earlier orders.

The content of the event and its communal nature: The petition brings to the Court’s attention the blatantly inflammatory and communal nature of the content being disseminated through the website promoting the “Dharam Sansad” event. The petition provides that the mission statement of the event openly declares:

“The World Religious Parliament is a meaningful initiative to warn the whole world about the danger of Islam and it is an effort to bring together every Non-Muslim of all over the countries.”

Further, the petition also provides the vision statement that outlines an explicit and dangerous agenda:

“Our goal is to free the entire world from Islamic Jihad. This is our specific goal and to achieve this goal, we will take all possible steps.”

In addition to the website’s content, the petition underscores that provocative and hateful language has been used in public speeches made by the event organisers, event as the announcement of the Dharam Sansad was being made. As per the petition, Yati Ramswaroopanand, one of the key figures associated with the event, delivered a speech in Dehradun on September 10, 2024, describing Muslims as “not human” and calling for Uttarakhand to be made “Islam mukt.” He further urged Hindus to “keep good weapons and learn how to use them.” The petition provides supporting material, including transcripts, screenshots, and reports, to substantiate these claims.

The petition emphasises that the dissemination of such incendiary content and the planned congregation of individuals with a documented history of hate speech is not only a violation of Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the IPC but also strikes at the core of India’s constitutional values of secularism, harmony, and fraternity.

Track record of violence and state inaction: The contempt petition goes beyond the immediate concern of the “Dharam Sansad” and highlights the troubling track record of the individuals involved in organising and promoting the event. Individuals like Yati Narsinghanand and Yati Ramswaroopanand have repeatedly made provocative speeches inciting communal violence. For instance:

• In October 2024, Darshan Bharati, another organiser of the “Dharam Sansad,” instigated a violent rally in Uttarkashi, where stones were thrown at the police, injuring 27 people, including police personnel.
• In September 2024, a speech delivered by Yati Narsinghanand in western Uttar Pradesh, against Prophet Mohammad, led to mass protests and violence in the region.
• In 2023, in Purola, Uttarkashi, a false “love jihad” narrative was used to incite violence, leading to attacks on Muslim-owned shops and the forced displacement of Muslim families. Subsequent court findings revealed that the case was fabricated, yet no action was taken against the instigators.

The petition highlights that despite a well-documented history of hate speech and communal violence directly linked to these individuals, the state authorities have failed to take preventive action or register FIRs, as mandated by the Supreme Court. This consistent inaction emboldens the organisers and poses an imminent threat to communal harmony in the region.

The petition argues that the respondents’ failure to act constitutes not just a dereliction of duty but a wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders. By ignoring repeated provocations and open announcements of such events, the state authorities are in clear contempt of court.

Legal basis and prayer for relief: The petition places heavy reliance on two recent judgments of the Supreme Court to strengthen its legal argument. In Chaduranga Kanthraj URS v. P. Ravi Kumar (2024), the Court clarified that wilful disobedience—deliberate and intentional disregard of court orders—constitutes civil contempt. Similarly, in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna (2024), the Court expanded the scope of contempt, holding that any act intended to undermine the judicial process also falls within its ambit. The petition argues that the respondents’ failure to prevent the “Dharam Sansad” event, despite its provocative and unconstitutional nature, directly undermines the Court’s authority and frustrates its earlier orders.

The petition concludes with the following prayers:

1. To initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for their deliberate non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders dated October 12, 2022 and April 28, 2023.
2. To issue immediate directions to the respondents to take legal action against the organisers, speakers, and promoters of the “Dharam Sansad” event. This includes issuing prohibitory orders to prevent the event from taking place and registering FIRs against those involved.
3. To pass any other relief that the Court may deem necessary to uphold its authority, safeguard public order, and protect constitutional values.

The petition emphasises that the Court’s intervention is not only necessary to address the specific case of non-compliance but also to reaffirm the rule of law and the constitutional mandate of secularism and fraternity. By allowing such events to proceed unchecked, the respondents are enabling the erosion of these values and endangering communal harmony across the nation. The petition, therefore, calls upon the Court to take strong and decisive action to ensure compliance with its earlier orders and prevent further escalation of hate speech and violence.

A detailed report on the widespread opposition that the Dharam Sansad is facing can be read here.

Related:

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

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 Dharm Sansad: Hindu Religious leaders condemn ‘divisive’ event even as a contempt petition is filed in SC 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.

Yati Narsinghanand, the militant Hindutva leader and the priest of Ghaziabad’s Dasna Devi temple, has said that he will “organise (the Dharm Sansad) at any cost,” after the Uttar Pradesh police on Thursday, November 3, issued a notice instructing him not to organise a ‘dharma sansad’ and a preparatory meeting at the temple, PTI  reports.

UP Police has reportedly stated that Narsinghanand has not obtained permission from district administration for neither of these two events.

Narsinghanand, who is known for extremely communal, sexist and violent statements had called for the three-day ‘dharma sansad’ to begin on December 17. The day is the birth anniversary of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Baikunth Lal Sharma. December 17 is also the day on which, last year, the Haridwar Dharma Sansad began. In it, a large collection of major religious leaders, right-wing activists, hardline fundamentalist militants and Hindutva organisations came together for an extraordinary outpouring of hate speech, mobilisations to violence and anti-Muslim sentiment.

The Supreme Court is presently adjudicating on two major petitions agitating the issue of police inaction and absence of prosecution of hate offenders. Dharma Sansads or ‘religious parliaments’ organised and attended by Hindutva leaders and supporters have been in the spotlight since, with local administrations often prohibiting these events.

An FIR was lodged in Haridwar against Narsinghanand for making highly provocative speeches against Muslims at the Haridwar Dharma Sansad. A five member SIT was constituted to investigate the allegations of hate speech by the Haridwar police.Yati Narsinghanand was first denied bail in an Uttarakhand court. Later a Sessions court granted him bail in February 2022. His bail condition had it that he would not be part of any event or gathering “which aims towards creating difference between communities”.

 ‘No permission needed, Will organise at any cost’

Despite these legal restrictions, , Narsinghanand has made statements openly exhorting violence multiple times since then. Narsinghanand had also called for a ‘preparatory meeting’ on December 6 to chalk out plans for the three-day event.

Ghaziabad superintendent of police (Rural) Iraj Raja said, “Without permission, the police will not permit the three-day-long ‘dharma sansad’ which hundreds of seers are expected to attend. Also, providing security to them would be a tough task.” Besides, prohibitory orders under CrPC Section 144 have been enforced in the district in view of civic body elections, the police officer said.

In a press statement that PTI refers to, Narsinghanand said, “Dharma Sansad will be held in the temple premises that is why no permission is required for it. And, it is not being held for the first time. We will organise it at any cost. If police and administration create hindrance, seers will lodge their protest.”

Note: This article, originally published as a PTI report at 12.38 pm

The post Defiant Narsinghanand, says ‘Will Organise at Any Cost,’ after UP Police notice over Dharma Sansad plans appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Swami Aniket Shastri Deshpande Maharaj of Mahant Shri Mandalacharya Peethadeeshwar has called a Dharam Sansad to be held in Nashik today. The purpose of this religious “parliament” is to determine the birthplace of Hanuman, a Hindu deity, who was himself a huge devotee of another Hindu deity Ram.

A controversy regarding the birthplace of Lord Hanuman surfaced recently after claims made by a saint from Karnataka, Mahant Govind Das of Kishkinda, that Lord Hanuman was born in Kishkindha, Karnataka instead of Anjaneri, Nashik. The saint has based his claims by referring to Valmiki Ramayana.

According to NDTV, he said, “In the Ramayana, Maharishi Valmiki has nowhere written that Lord Hanuman was born in Anjaneri. The birthplace always remains in one place and it is not written anywhere that Lord Hanuman was born in Anjaneri, Nashik.”

Nashik Police have issued a notice to the organisers to maintain law and order.

There have been several land disputes circling around the birthplace of Hindu deities, the most prominent being Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, and the developing Krishna Janmabhoomi movement surrounding land upon which the Shahi Idgah mosque is built in Mathura.

Going by the track record of Dharm Sansads held so far, watch this space for reports of hate speech.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: District court adjourns hearings in maintainability suit till July 4

Temple-mosque politics: Right Wing’s communal hit list getting longer?

Krishna Janmabhoomi: Mathura ADJ directs lower court to hear plea for appointment of Court Commissioner for survey of mosque

The deity has survived for last 800 years: Delhi court reserves order in Qutub Minar case

Dharam Sansad case: SC grants 3 months interim bail to Jitendra Tyagi in Hate Speech

This is something spoiling the atmosphere: SC in Dharm Sansad case

Dharm Sansads: SC pulls up Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh for lax approach

The post Now Dharam Sansad in Nashik to discuss the birthplace of Lord Hanuman! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 12, 2022, Supreme Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Jitendra Tyagi a.k.a Wasim Rizvi challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s order which refused to grant him bail.

Jitendra Tyagi has been charged with Section 153A IPC, (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), an offence which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years.

The plea was heard by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath who have listed the matter to be heard on May 17, 2022.

While hearing the plea, Justice Rastogi reportedly asked Senior Advocate Sidarth Luthra, appearing for Tyagi, “What is Dharm Sansad by the way?” Adv. Luthra responded saying, “I’m an Arya Samaji, I don’t know. I have seen videos where people in Saffron clothes got together and gave speeches.”

LiveLaw quoted Justice Ajay Rastogi as saying, “Spoiling the atmosphere! Stay together peacefully, enjoy life.”

Luthra reportedly submitted, “I bow down. We need to be sensitive to people and nation and our citizens. I understand.” However, the bench reportedly said, “Before they ask to sensitise others, they have to sensitise themselves first. They are not sensitised. This is something spoiling the whole atmosphere.”

Noting that the maximum sentence for the offence is three years, and the accused has already been in jail for three months, the bench reportedly asked the complainant counsel, “He is already in custody. What further investigation you would like to be made? It is already complete.”

The complainant counsel informed the bench that Tyagi is determined to not follow the law as he recently released another video pursuant to the incident. Accordingly, the Court asked the Deputy Advocate General for Uttarakhand to take note and sought State’s response on the matter.

Brief background of the case

Jitendra Tyagi, once known as Waseem Rizvi, was the former chairperson of Shia Waqf Board who recently converted to Hinduism. He was arrested by the Uttarakhand Police in January 2022 for his hate speech at the Hindutva conclave Dharam Sansad held in December last year. A bail application was filed by Tyagi before the Uttarakhand High Court which found the speech delivered by Rizvi-Tyagi amounting to “hate speech that intended to wage war, promoted enmity and was derogatory towards Prophet Muhammad”.

Justice Ravindra Maithani refused to grant bail to the accused stating, “This Court refrains to reproduce from the transcript as to what was allegedly stated by the applicant. But, undoubtedly, the transcript reveals that there are huge derogatory remarks against a particular religion; against Prophet. The Prophet has been abused; it intends to wound the religious feelings of persons belonging to a particular religion; it intends to wage war. It promotes enmity. It is a hate speech.” The Court ordered, “Having considered the repeated nature of allegations; the kind of utterances which the applicant has allegedly made, published video message and its possible impact on the society, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is liable to be rejected.”

On May 19, 2022, the Supreme Court is expected to hear the petitions seeking criminal action against the alleged anti-Muslim hate speeches made at the ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Haridwar (Uttarakhand) and Delhi in December 2021. Alongwith the original petition, the Court was informed about the issue of Dharam Sansad held in Una (Himachal Pradesh) and another upcoming event that was likely to be held in Roorke (Uttarakhand). The Supreme Court also considered a petition filed by three retired officers of the Armed Forces (Major General SG Vombatkere, Colonel PK Nair and Major Priyadarshi Chowdhary) seeking probe by a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged hate speeches delivered at the Dharam Sansad religious events organised at Haridwar and Delhi.

Two weeks ago on April 26, immediately before the upcoming Dharam Sansad in Uttarakhand, the apex court  had sharply pulled up the State government for its failure to explain how it will prevent hate speeches from being made during the upcoming Dharam Sansad scheduled to be held in Roorkee and holding the Chief Secretary of the state responsible for possible lapses, the Court further directed him to place on record the corrective measures to taken by them in case the situation got out of hand. Justice Khanwilkar told the Deputy Advocate General of the State of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi, “You will have to take immediate action. Don’t make us say something. There are other ways of preventive action. You know how to do it!”

On behalf of the Chief Secretary when the Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand reassured the Court that they will do their best to prevent any such situation, the Court lashed out at them saying, “It is your duty, you are not doing us a favour!”

Pursuant to court orders, the Haridwar district administration in Uttarakhand had denied permission to hold a ‘Dharam Sansad’ that was scheduled to take place in Roorkee and imposed Section 144 CrPC prohibiting assembly of more than five people within a five-kilometre radius of the Dada Jalalpur village near Roorkee as reported by Scroll.

The Court had also directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit stating the preventive steps that were taken before the Dharam Sansad event in Una and the implementation of the guidelines previously laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501. Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners informed the court that the Collector and Superintendent of Police did not do anything to stop the event despite it being brought to their notice. The Court reportedly asked, “There are guidelines in Poonawalla case. Are you following it? No prevention has been taken. You had to stop it. File affidavit showing what preventive actions were taken by you.”

On an earlier occasion, the Supreme Court had expressed its dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by Delhi Police with respect to the speeches made by Sudarshan News TV Editor Suresh Chavhanke at the Delhi Dharam Sansad in December 2021 and directed them to file a ‘better affidavit’ by May 4, 2022. According to LiveLaw, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka orally remarked, “The affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police. We hope he has understood the nuances. Has he merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied his mind? Is it your stand as well or the reproduction of inquiry report of Sub inspector level?”

Related:

Jitendra Tyagi’s Dharam Sansad hate speech intended to wage war: Uttarakhand High Court

All of you will die, your children too: Narsinghanand tells Haridwar cops as they arrest Jitendra Tyagi

Dharm Sansads: SC pulls up Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh for lax approach

The post This is something spoiling the atmosphere: SC in Dharm Sansad case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In what can be seen as an unprecedented and welcome move to ensure communal unrest is nipped in the bud, Uttarakhand Police ensured peace in Roorkee by thwarting any attempts to hold a ‘Dharma Sansad’ as threatened by right-wing groups. According to The Indian Express, over 30 people were put under preventive arrest.  Haridwar SSP Yogendra Singh Rawat told the publication, “Haridwar-based Anand Swaroop Maharaj and Sindhu Sagar Maharaj were among those detained.” Thus, another attempt at a gathering that in the past turned dangerously communal, and whose hate speeches continue to fuel anti-minority, particularly anti-Muslim hate across the country, was stopped.

The so called ‘mahapanchayat’ was planned to be held on Wednesday in Roorkee’s Dada Jalalpur village, where communal violence had erupted during Hanuman Jayanti procession on the night of April 16. When the procession crossed a mosque in Jalalpur village, there were reportedly objections raised against an offensive “song that was playing on a loudspeaker” with words like “Mulla Pakistani” played by procession members who were carrying swords and lathis, reportedly in the presence of DM, DIG and heavy police deployment. This reportedly led to clashes, stone pelting and destruction of public property. At least 10 people, including a police sub-inspector, were injured in the clash. An FIR was filed by the police naming 12 people and 40 unknown people. 

The Supreme Court had pulled up the Uttarakhand government on Wednesday for its failure to explain how it will prevent hate speeches from being made during the upcoming Dharam Sansad that had been called for in Roorkee. Holding the Chief Secretary of the state responsible for possible lapses, the SC bench headed by AM Khanwilkar and also comprising Abhay Srinivas Oka and CT Ravikumar further directed him to place on record the corrective measures to be taken by them in case the situation gets out of hand. 

On Tuesday, the Haridwar district administration issued prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC in place covering a 5 km area around the village. According to IE, five companies of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) and over 250 police jawans were also deployed overnight. This along with the preventive arrests of the organisers, and Hindutva leaders ensured that peace prevailed in Dada Jalalpur, on Wednesday. According to news reports, schools and markets remained open, but Police teams manned “every entrance and exit” point of the area and “no outsider was allowed to enter the village without proper identification. At least four drones were deployed to keep a watch.”

Haridwar-based Anand Swaroop, one of the organisers, was put under house arrest at an ashram. Swaroop after arriving in Roorkee, he issued a video statement and complained, “Heavy police force is deployed outside the ashram and the way from here to there (Dada Jalalpur) has been turned into a chhavani (a military cantonment). I don’t know why the police and administration are so scared of us and why they are scared of Hindus… We never get involved in violence, we never spread terrorism. We respond to people in their own language.” According to Swaroop it was a matter of time that “this volcano will erupt, and when that happens, it will engulf everyone.” 

Haridwar Hatemonger Anand Swaroop reached Roorkee for today’s Hindu Mahapanchayat, and was put under house-arrest. He says police has not told them whereabouts of another Haridwar accused Dineshanand. Yesterday, Supreme Court asked Uttarakhand govt to ensure no hate speech here. pic.twitter.com/OJMX1Sg3wS

— Kaushik Raj (@kaushikrj6) April 27, 2022

District Magistrate Vinay Shankar Pandey told the media that after the Supreme Court took cognisance of the mahapanchayat, Section 144 was imposed, adding that “no permission was sought from us.” Pandey added, “The organisers of the event have been demanding more arrests in the Hanuman Jayanti violence case. However, the law does not work like that. More arrests will be made based on what the investigating officer finds,” reported IE.

Related:

Dharm Sansads: SC pulls up Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh for lax approach

Dharam Sansad: Now Army veterans move court seeking probe by SIT into hate speeches

SC rejects Delhi Police affidavit that claimed no hate speech was made at Delhi Dharam Sansad

Khargone: Five arrested for Ibraish Khan’s murder 

Will Uttarakhand allow yet another anti-Muslim Dharam Sansad to be held at Roorkee?

All of you will die, your children too: Narsinghanand tells Haridwar cops as they arrest Jitendra Tyagi

Almost a month but no arrests, CJP urges DGP to act soon in ‘Dharam Sansad’ case

SC issues notice in plea urging criminal prosecution in Dharam Sansad case

The post SC impact: No Dharm Sansad as peace prevails in Roorkee appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has sharply pulled up the Uttarakhand government for its failure to explain how it will prevent hate speeches from being made during the upcoming Dharam Sansad scheduled to be held in Roorkee. Holding the Chief Secretary of the state responsible for possible lapses, the SC bench headed by AM Khanwilkar and also comprising Abhay Srinivas Oka and CT Ravikumar further directed him to place on record the corrective measures to taken by them in case the situation gets out of hand.

Justice Khanwilkar told the Deputy Advocate General of the State of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi, “You will have to take immediate action. Don’t make us say something. There are other ways of preventive action. You know how to do it!”

On December 19-21, incendiary statements calling for the arming of Hindus and the killing of Muslims were made at a similar Dharm Sansad in Haridwar. The long overdue directions from the Supreme Court came at a hearing that took place on April 26, 2022. The court has also issued clear directions for prevention of such actions in the future.

The bench presided by Justice AM Khanwilkar, today, was quoted by BarandBench saying, “We are informed another Dharam sansad is planned in Roorkee tomorrow and another application has been filed against it. Counsel for Uttarakhand submits that all preventive measures have been taken as per SC decisions. Uttarakhand says authorities are confident that no such untoward statement will be made during the event and all steps as per decisions of this court will be taken. We direct Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to place above position on record and apprise us about the corrective measures.”

The Court also directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit stating the preventive steps that were taken before the Dharam Sansad event in Una and the implementation of the guidelines previously laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501.

With respect to the Dharam Sansad event held in Una, Himachal Pradesh, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners informed the court that the Collector and Superintendent of Police did not do anything to stop the event despite it being brought to their notice. The Court reportedly asked, “There are guidelines in Poonawalla case. Are you following it? No prevention has been taken. You had to stop it. File affidavit showing what preventive actions were taken by you.”

In their defence, the State informed the court that they had issued notifications under Section 64 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, which states,

“All persons shall be bound to comply with the reasonable and lawful directions given by a Police Officer in the discharge of his duties under this Act. Where any person resists, refuses or fails to comply with any such direction, a Police Officer may, without prejudice to any other action, remove such person or arrest and produce him before the nearest Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction as soon as possible and in any case within a period of twenty-four hours”. 

However, the court was interested in knowing the preventive steps that were undertaken by them and most importantly whether they reacted to the situation immediately. The court was quoted by BarandBench saying, “This did not happen suddenly, it was planned and notice was given. You have to explain did you immediately react to the situation or not. Explain the preventive steps taken.” Most importantly, Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal brought to the attention of the court that despite notifications issued under Section 64 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, as claimed by the State, no arrests had been made.

The said pleas were filed by the petitioners (former Patna High Court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali) in connection with the original writ petition seeking criminal action against the alleged anti-Muslim hate speeches made at the ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Haridwar (Uttarakhand) and Delhi in December 2021.

During the last hearing on April 22, 2022, Senior Counsel Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, had submitted that the petitioners have filed a fresh interlocutory application in view of some scandalous things said at the event in Una but the bench posted the application to April 26,2022 since the cause list did not notify the appearance of the Counsel of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

The saffron clad hate speech maker, Yati Narsinghanand had previously given an anti-Muslim speech in Una, Himachal Pradesh. At yet another ‘Dharma Sansad’ of Akhil Bharatiya Sant Parishad in Una district, he repeated his imaginary theory of an “increasing population of Muslims in the country” and that this was “indicating the decline of Hindus”. Once again, Yati, a ‘monk’ therefore celibate, and with no children, had said, “Hindus should produce more children to protect their family and Sanatan Dharma.”

With respect to the upcoming Dharam Sansad event to be held in Roorkee, Uttarakhand, the Counsel for the State said in its defence that they cannot anticipate what will be said at a religious conclave, to which the Court responded, “If it is by the same person then you have to prevent it. Don’t make us say things. Precautionary and preventive measure have to be taken.”

In yet another feeble defence, the Counsel for the State reportedly stated that “It is an attempt to colour a community in a certain way and the community they are trying to protect is also here. We are maintaining harmony.” The Court lashed out at them saying, “This is not the way to address in court. If this happens again, we have to ask the Chief Secretary to remain present.”

The State reportedly submitted that the Chief Secretary said they will do their best to prevent any such situation. The Court reportedly stated, “It is your duty, you are not doing us a favour.”

One of the main contentions raised before the bench in the original petition was that the Uttarakhand Police had not made any arrests in the case and the Delhi Police have not even registered an FIR. The petition sought directions to the police authorities to comply with the guidelines laid down by it in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501 and to consequently define the contours of ‘duty of care in investigation’ to be undertaken by the police authorities, reported LiveLaw.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by Delhi Police with respect to the speeches made by Sudarshan News TV Editor Suresh Chavhanke at the Delhi Dharam Sansad in December 2021 and directed them to file a ‘better affidavit’ by May 4, 2022. According to LiveLaw, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka asked, “The affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police. We hope he has understood the nuances. Has he merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied his mind? Is it your stand as well or the reproduction of inquiry report of Sub inspector level?”

In their affidavit the Police said, “After a deep inquiry and evaluation of the contents of the video, the police did not find any substance in the videos as per the allegations levelled by the complainants. In the video clip of the Delhi incident, there is no utterance against any particular community. Hence, after inquiry and after evaluation of the alleged video clip, it was concluded that the alleged hate speech did not disclose any hate words against a particular community as alleged.”

On the same day, the Supreme Court also considered a petition filed by three retired officers of the Armed Forces (Major General SG Vombatkere, Colonel PK Nair and Major Priyadarshi Chowdhary) through Advocates Senthil Jagadeesan and Vinayak Bhandari seeking probe by a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged hate speeches delivered at the Dharam Sansad religious events organised at Haridwar and Delhi between December 17 and 19, 2021.

The petitioners submitted, “We are highly decorated officers of the Army. The regiments and the troops which they have controlled during their careers, those subordinate to them, are drawn from various and different communities. The petition is essentially directed against aspects of hate speech which were made between 17th and 19th of December 2021.”

The petitioners have opined that such hate speeches can even affect the battle efficiency of our Armed Forces and in turn compromise national security. The petitioners have argued that such incitement to violence together with public expressions of hate constitute a serious breach of internal security and could also tear apart the social character of our nation, as reported by LiveLaw.

The Court still directed that the copy of Uttarakhand’s response to the previous matter, and Delhi Police Commissioner’s reply affidavit in the leading case, be made available to Counsel Divan, as it thinks that it is possible that the issues raised by the petitioners in the previous matter pertaining to events unfolded in the state of Uttarakhand may be similar to the issues raised in the original writ petition.

The Court has listed all the matters to be heard on May 9, 2022.

Related:

Will Uttarakhand allow yet another anti-Muslim Dharam Sansad to be held at Roorkee?

Yati Narsinghanand calls Hindu women snakes for not having enough children

SC issues notice in plea urging criminal prosecution in Dharam Sansad case 

SC to hear plea seeking SIT probe in ‘Dharam Sansad’ due to lack of substantive police inquiry

SC rejects Delhi Police affidavit that claimed no hate speech was made at Delhi Dharam Sansad

Dharam Sansad: Now Army veterans move court seeking probe by SIT into hate speeches

Supreme Court directs Uttarakhand Govt to file status report on FIRs in ‘Dharam Sansad’ meet

The post Dharm Sansads: SC pulls up Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh for lax approach appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On April 22, 2022, the Supreme Court considered a petition filed by three retired officers of the Armed Forces seeking probe by a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged hate speeches delivered at the Dharam Sansad religious events organised at Haridwar and Delhi between December 17 and 19, 2021.

The petition was filed by Major General SG Vombatkere, Colonel PK Nair and Major Priyadarshi Chowdhary through Advocates Senthil Jagadeesan and Vinayak Bhandari

The bench posted the petition to May 9 to be heard along with the PIL filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash seeking similar action against hate speech.

According to LiveLaw, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for petitioners submitted, “We are highly decorated officers of the Army. The regiments and the troops which they have controlled during their careers, those subordinate to them, are drawn from various and different communities. The petition is essentially directed against aspects of hate speech which were made between 17th and 19th of December 2021. Apart from Union of India, the two respondents are Uttarakhand and the Government of NCT.”

Referring to the report filed by the Uttarakhand Government in the previous matter, Justice Khanwilkar asked the Counsel to go through the response of the said State to see if the issue still survives, as Sibal had raised something about Uttarakhand but had not pressed the issue, to which Counsel Divan responded, “The issue has survived. We have given translation of the speech along with the minutes etc.”

However, the Court still directed that the copy of Uttarakhand’s response to the previous matter, and Delhi Police Commissioner’s reply affidavit in the leading case, be made available to Counsel Divan, as it thinks that it is possible that the issues raised by the petitioners in the previous matter pertaining to events unfolded in the state of Uttarakhand may be similar to the issues raised in the present writ petition.

Most importantly, the petitioners have opined that such hate speeches can even affect the battle efficiency of our Armed Forces and in turn compromise national security. The petitioners have argued that such incitement to violence together with public expressions of hate constitute a serious breach of internal security and could also tear apart the social character of our nation, as reported by LiveLaw.

Related:

SC issues notice in plea urging criminal prosecution in Dharam Sansad case
SC to hear plea seeking SIT probe in ‘Dharam Sansad’ due to lack of substantive police inquiry
Will Uttarakhand allow yet another anti-Muslim Dharam Sansad to be held at Roorkee?
Supreme Court directs Uttarakhand Govt to file status report on FIRs in ‘Dharam Sansad’ meet

The post Dharam Sansad: Now Army veterans move court seeking probe by SIT into hate speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dissatisfied with the affidavit filed by Delhi Police with respect to the speeches made by Sudarshan News TV Editor Suresh Chavhanke at the Delhi Dharam Sansad, the Supreme Court, on April 22, 2022 directed them to file a ‘better affidavit’ by May 4, 2022.

Chavhanke had made communal statements at the Hindu Yuva Vahini event in December 2021. But the affidavit by the police stated that no anti-Muslim hate speech was made by the Editor. Police claim that they conducted an ‘in-depth investigation’ into the video clips of the speeches and found no words were used against any particular community. This despite multiple media reports of pernicious calls for genocide being made against the minority community.

According to LiveLaw, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka asked, “The affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police. We hope he has understood the nuances. Has he merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied his mind? Is it your stand as well or the reproduction of inquiry report of Sub inspector level?”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners argued that the Delhi Police have justified the speech calling to ‘kill’ the minorities as they see it to be for protection of community ethics. Sibal reportedly stated, “They say that they are ready to kill. The police say this is to protect the ethics of the community. Your lordships may have to decide constitutionally what the ethics are.”

In view of this, the Bench suggested Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Delhi Police, to have a re-look at the affidavit. Accordingly, ASG agreed to relook and file a fresh affidavit.

While the matter has been listed for May 9, the Court has directed the Delhi Police to file a better affidavit by May 4.

A PIL was filed by former Patna High Court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali seeking criminal action against the alleged anti-Muslim hate speeches made at the ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Haridwar and Delhi. One of the main contentions raised before the bench was that the Uttarakhand Police have not made any arrests in the case and the Delhi Police have not even registered an FIR.

The petition sought directions to the police authorities to comply with the guidelines laid down by it in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501 and to consequently define the contours of ‘duty of care in investigation’ to be undertaken by the police authorities, reported LiveLaw.

The plea highlighted that no substantive action has been taken by either Uttarakhand or Delhi Police in the matter. While the former had registered FIRs and not arrested a single accused, the latter had not even registered an FIR. Further, the FIRs lodged missed out on invoking important offences like section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121A (conspiracy to wage war against Government of India) and 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) of the IPC.

In their affidavit the Police said, “After a deep inquiry and evaluation of the contents of the video, the police did not find any substance in the videos as per the allegations levelled by the complainants. In the video clip of the Delhi incident, there is no utterance against any particular community. Hence, after inquiry and after evaluation of the alleged video clip, it was concluded that the alleged hate speech did not disclose any hate words against a particular community as alleged.”

Dharam Sansad in Haridwar and Himachal Pradesh

On April 13, 2022, the Court had directed the Uttarakhand government on April 13, 2022, to file a status report on the progress of investigations with respect to the hate speeches made in Haridwar.

Today, the Counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Government informed the Court that the investigation was completed and chargesheets have been filed accordingly. The Counsel further went on to raise an objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to which the Court replied, “We have read it everywhere.”

With respect to the Dharam Sansad event in Himachal Pradesh, Sibal submitted that the petitioners have filed a fresh interlocutory application in view of some scandalous things said at the event but the bench posted the application to April 26, 2022 since the cause list did not notify the appearance of the Counsel of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Related:

SC issues notice in plea urging criminal prosecution in Dharam Sansad case
SC to hear plea seeking SIT probe in ‘Dharam Sansad’ due to lack of substantive police inquiry
Will Uttarakhand allow yet another anti-Muslim Dharam Sansad to be held at Roorkee?
Supreme Court directs Uttarakhand Govt to file status report on FIRs in ‘Dharam Sansad’ meet

The post SC rejects Delhi Police affidavit that claimed no hate speech was made at Delhi Dharam Sansad appeared first on SabrangIndia.