No Hate Expressed by Suresh Chavhanke at Delhi, Speech About Empowering Religion – Delhi Police to Supreme Court
|The Delhi Police has told the Supreme Court that no hate speech against any community was made by Sudarshan News TV Chief Editor Suresh Chavhanke. The Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Delhi Police has been filed by Esha Pandey IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East Delhi.
The Police had filed this Counter Affidavit in response to a Petition before the Supreme Court, which sought probe into the alleged hate speech against the Muslim community by Suresh Chavhanke at an event ogranised by Hindu Yuva Vahini at Delhi.
The PIL Petitioners are journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash Desai (former Patna High Court judge).
The Petition stated that at two separate events in Delhi hate speeches were made, which included open calls for genocide and references to ethnic cleansing. The Petition also contended that the Delhi Police was "hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of communal hatred".
In their response, the Police submitted that no such words as mentioned in the Petition have been used, and that the speeches were about empowering one's own religion. In that context, the Police stated that "the findings of the inquiry after visual and audio examination of the evidence further disclose that the speech did not contain any hate words against a particular community and the persons who gathered were there with the motive to save the ethics of their community."
The Police contended that the PIL Petitioners have misused the process of law and have not approached the Supreme Court with clean hands, as they filed the Writ Petition without availing any other statutory remedies.
Refuting the claims about being hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of communal hatred, the Police stated that the allegations are baseless and imaginary. They contended that their investigation was unbiased since it was based on videotape evident and that there is "hardly any scope on the part of investigation agencies to tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner".
The Police also went on to suggest that the Complainants must practice tolerance to the views of others, and that "Intolerance is as much a danger to democracy as it is to the person himself".
Therefore, the Police prayed before the Supreme Court that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it ought to be dismissed.