New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, February 3, ordered the Maharashtra government to videograph the February 5 planned meeting of Sakal Hindu Samaj, a Hindutva organisation, to ensure that there would be no hate speech.The court also took an undertaking from the state government that permission will be granted only on the condition that “nobody will make any hate speech and act in defiance of law or disturb the public order”.According to LiveLaw, the issue came up before a two-judge bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice J.B. Pardiwala when a petition seeking a ban on the upcoming meeting was filed before the court. The petitioner, Shaheen Abdullah, citing a similar event held by the same Hindutva outfit in Mumbai on January 29, alleged that anti-Muslim hate speeches were made by the organisers. His petition feared that granting permission for the upcoming event by the outfit would result in hate speeches yet again.Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court to invoke against organisers Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers police to arrest persons to prevent any cognisable offence. Counsel for Maharashtra and solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, opposed the plea of the petitioner.At this stage, the court said, “We also direct that the officers, in case permission is granted and in case the occasion arises for invoking power under Section 151, it shall be the duty of the officers concerned to invoke the mandate of Section 151.”The court also agreed with Sibal’s plea that the event must be recorded on video and a report must be submitted to the court. The local police inspector of the area where the event will be taking place has been directed to do so.The court also went on to instruct solicitor general, Mehta, to get information from the state government on the allegations levelled by the petitioner about the January 29 event.Mehta took objection to the fact that the petitioner is from Kerala and questioned his purpose behind seeking a ban on an event in Maharashtra. He also accused the petitioner of “selectively” taking up causes in the name of being a “public-spirited person”.The SG, while recording the Maharashtra government’s undertaking before the court, said the plea seeking a ban on the event, anticipating hate speech, amounted to “pre-speech censorship”.In response to this, Sibal, on behalf of the petitioner, said that “grave statements” made by speakers during the last meeting must be considered before granting permission. Sibal said a member of parliament (MP) from the ruling party was also present in the last meeting. According to the petitioner, the speakers had called for a social and economic boycott of Muslims.The government’s counsel opposed Sibal’s contention. “The petitioners are seeking not only pre-speech censorship but also pre-speech arrest,” said Mehta, questioning the rationale for invoking Section 151.Stating that “pre-judging” a speech was not right, Mehta accepted the court’s decision to videograph the event, but added that “ideally the public-spirited people should record, who come selectively and abuse this court’s jurisdiction”.In response, Justice Joseph asked Mehta, “Do you think petitioners will be permitted to do videography?”
