The Delhi Police have told the Supreme Court that there were no instances of hate speech at a Hindu Yuva Vahini event nor was there, as alleged, any "open call for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing."
The words spoken were, instead, about "empowering one's religion to prepare itself to face the evils which could endanger its existence, which is not even remotely connected to a call for genocide of any particular religion".
"None of the words spoken in any manner whatsoever overtly and explicitly described Indian Muslims as usurpers of territory, and as predators of land, livelihoods and of Hindu women, and nothing was said or done which could create an environment of paranoia amongst any religion, caste or creed," the counter-affidavit filed by the Delhi Police through Esha Pandey, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-east Delhi, submitted.
The affidavit was in reply to a petition filed by Qurban Ali, a journalist, and Anjana Prakash, a former High Court judge.
The petitioners had alleged that events in Haridwar and Delhi in December 2021 witnessed hate speeches delivered with "the apparent objective of declaring war against a significant section of the Indian citizenry." They had sought an independent, credible and impartial investigation into the alleged incidents of hate speeches against the Muslim community.
The police said the fundamental freedom of speech could not be suppressed unless it created a situation that was "pressing" or if it endangered community interests.
The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched, the police noted. The expressions in the speech made at the Delhi event were not "intrinsically dangerous to public interest."
The police went far enough to mention the "clear and present danger" test introduced by former U.S. Supreme Court judge, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., to determine the point where discussion ended and incitement began.
Referring to the speech by Sudarshan TV's Suresh Chavhanke at the Hindu Yuva Vahini event in Delhi's Govindpuri, the police said it did not "disclose any such aim to incite caste, language and communal fanaticism as alleged or otherwise, nor has it resulted in any action in furtherance of any such incitement".
In viral videos of the event, Chavhanke can be seen standing in an auditorium’s podium, surrounded by the participants, all saffron-clad, and asking the audience to “take an oath” to “make the country a Hindu Rashtra” even if that means “assaulting someone”.
Chavhanke can be seen raising slogans such as “ Hum sab shapat lete hai … vachan lete hai, apne antim pran ...is desh ko Hindu rashtra banane ke lie, banaye rakhne ke lie, aage badhane ke lie ladenge, maarenge, zaroorat padhi to maarenge”. The crowd repeats the same in unison. Chavhanke himself posted the video on Twitter of him taking an oath at the event.
Pratik Sinha, Founder, AltNews, told The Hindu that the video clearly establishes a call for violence and killing a particular group of people.
“He [Chavhanke] can be seen openly taking an oath of violence even if it is not against a particular community... the Delhi Police’s response does not add up,” Mr. Sinha said.
The Delhi Police advised the practice of tolerance to the views of others.
"Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself. The petitioner is trying to draw an incorrect and absurd inference by isolated passages disregarding the main theme and its message," the police said.
It said there were no words used at the Delhi event that could mean or be interpreted as "open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing or an open call for murder of an entire community in the speech." The facts do not disclose the commission of a cognisable offence.
The Delhi Police criticised the petitioners for approaching the Supreme Court directly while making "baseless, imaginary" allegations against the police being hand in glove with perpetrators of communal hate.
"The petitioners have approached the Supreme Court presuming that in the entire country, no legal establishment is functioning, except this Honourable Court. That is why the petitioner did not choose to follow any of the legally established mechanism for registration of a criminal case and directly approached this court," the affidavit said.
It urged the court to "deprecate and discourage such practices, else it will open up the floodgates before this court, which is already overburdened."
