In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the principle that an individual organizing a public meeting cannot be held accountable for a hate speech delivered by one of the participants, over which the organizer had no control or responsibility.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of upholding the basic tenet of criminal law, which holds individuals responsible for their own actions and does not impose vicarious liability on others unless specifically provided for under the law.
Brief Facts:
The case in question revolved around an FIR filed against Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Alok Kumar by activist Harsh Mander. The complaint alleged that Kumar delivered a hate speech during a VHP rally in 2019, inciting violence against members of the Muslim community in connection with the vandalization of a temple in Old Delhi's Lal Kuan.
Contentions by the Petitioner:
The petitioner maintained that his involvement in organizing the public meeting was nominal and did not make him vicariously liable for another person's speech or actions. He pointed out that he was present before the court on the day of the alleged incident, as recorded in various order sheets.
Moreover, the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that no specific allegations were made against him in the complaint and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He argued that no cognizable offence was made out against him, as supported by the status report filed by the police after their preliminary inquiry.
Contentions by the Respondent:
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the hate speech made during the public meeting violated various sections of the Indian Penal Code, promoting violence against a religious community and encouraging lawless behaviour. The speech was considered to incite disharmony between religious communities and disregard constitutional norms and principles. The State/respondent no. 2 (representing the prosecution) supported the impugned order, asserting that the grounds raised by the petitioner could not be adjudicated at that stage, and the police had to be allowed to investigate the case as directed by the Magistrate.
Observations by the Court:
Setting aside the trial court's order directing the Delhi Police to register the FIR, Justice Sharma observed that even if the allegations against Kumar were to be accepted, there was no evidence to suggest that he had committed any illegal act in furtherance of any common intention. The court stressed that an individual cannot be made to face criminal proceedings without concrete material or evidence establishing their involvement in the alleged offence.
The High Court emphasized that inflammatory speeches leading to social disorder should be dealt with seriously under relevant provisions of the law. However, it also cautioned against directing the registration of FIRs in a casual and trivial manner, especially when there is no material on record to substantiate the commission of a cognizable offence. The court urged magistrates to exercise caution and pass reasoned orders, particularly when they disagree with detailed Action Taken Reports submitted by the police after preliminary inquiries.
Furthermore, Justice Sharma noted that during sensitive times, as in the case of the vandalization of the temple, harmony and peaceful coexistence should be promoted. The court appreciated the efforts of both communities in maintaining peace and preventing any further incidents of vandalism or riots after the public meeting.
The decision of the Court:
As a directive, the judgment will be brought to the attention of the Director, Academics, Delhi Judicial Academy, and the learned Registrar General of the court for circulation.
Case Name: Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 1463/2020 & CRL.M.A. 5732/2020
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Manisha Agarwal, Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Manan Soni, Mr. Rahul Madan, Mr. Deepak Mittal, Mr. Rabi Kumar, Mr. Divyansh Vajpayee, Ms. Rakshita Goyal, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Mr. Ajay Saini and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Ms.Nirmala Singh and Mr. Harsh Gautam, Advocates
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Daniyal Khan, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State with Inspector Amit Kumar, P .S. Hauz Qazi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
