Runaway Amritpal Singh posts Video amid on the run to shun Cops
Runaway Amritpal Singh posts Video amid on the run to shun Cops
In a fresh development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday 29 March took serious anomaly to hate speeches attributing these will end no sooner politics and religions are split and politicians desist from using religion in politics.
Designating hate speeches a “vicious circle”, the top court attributed these vocalisings are being activated by fringe elements and people should bridle themselves from doing so.
A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna referred to speeches of former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, saying people from remote areas and every nook and corner used to gather to hear them.
Major hassles crop up. when politicians are blending politics with religion. The moment politics and religion are filtered out, this will end. When politicians stop using religion, all this will come to an end. For democracy, mixing politics with religion is dangerous claimed Justice Joseph.
Wonder as to how many people courts can initiate contempt action. The bench further questioned why can’t the people of India take a pledge to not to vilify other citizens or communities.
Practically on a daily affair, fringe elements are making speeches to vilify others including on TV and public forums, the bench attributed while hearing a contempt petition against various state authorities including Maharashtra for its failure to register FIRs against those making such speeches.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out a derogatory speech made in Kerala by a man against a particular community and questioned that petitioner Shaheen Abdullah selectively pointed out the incidents of hate speeches in the country, that triggered sharp exchanges amidst the court and Mehta.
He also pointed out a statement made by a DMK party leader and asked why hasn’t the petitioner’s counsel not made him and those states party in the contempt petition.
The bench referred to those speeches and pointed out that every action has equal reaction and emphasised, we are following the Constitution and orders in every case are bricks in the structure of rule of law.
We are hearing the contempt petition because states are not taking action in time. This is because the state has become impotent, powerless and does not act in time. Why should we have a state at all if it is silent?
News input KV Raman
