Cong, AAP, Patidar leaders demand FIR against Raj Thackeray over remarks on Sardar Patel
Ahmedabad (PTI): The Congress, AAP and Patidar leaders in Gujarat have criticised Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray over his comments about Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and former Prime Minister Morarji Desai.
They have also demanded a ban on Thackeray’s entry to Gujarat and an FIR against him.
Addressing a rally in Maharashtra's Thane district on Friday, the MNS chief said when migrants from Bihar were "beaten up and driven away" in Gujarat, it did not become an issue, but a minor incident in Maharashtra became a national issue.
He also referred to Morarji Desai and Sardar Patel’s alleged anti-Marathi stand after independence.
Over the past few weeks, MNS workers have been aggressively demanding that those living in Maharashtra learn Marathi. They have also assaulted a few shopkeepers for failing to respond in Marathi.
Gujarat Congress' newly appointed president Amit Chavda on Sunday said making a statement against “Sardar Saheb” was akin to throwing dust in front of the sun.
“If you do politics on the soil of Gujarat, you will get an answer,” he added.
Aam Aadmi Party’s state president Isudan Gadhvi said Gujaratis will never tolerate Thackeray’s remarks.
“Your politics is not working, so you are insulting not only the Gujarati people but also the leader of the entire country, Sardar Patel,” he said.
Gadhvi appealed to Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel and state BJP president CR Paatil to get an FIR registered against Thackeray.
“Sardar Patel united 565 princely states and created a united India. When Sardar Patel passed away, he had only Rs 261 in his account. Yet, some Maharashtra leaders are trying to further their political agenda by using derogatory language for such a great personality,” he said.
Patidar leader Manoj Panara submitted a petition to the police in Morbi city, demanding a sedition case against Thackeray and a ban on his entry to Gujarat.
“We strongly condemn the comments he made about Sardar Saheb and former PM Morarji Desai. In the coming days, we will knock on the doors of courts and offices and take legal action against him,” he said.
Patidar leader Alpesh Kathiria said Thackeray has no right to insult national icons.
Sardar Patel Group president Lalji Patel and Patidar Yuva Sangh led by Manoj Panara have also condemned Thackeray’s statements. Panara has demanded that the MNS chief, whose mentality he termed “narrow”, be banned from entering Gujarat.
Lalji Patel alleged Thackeray has always been anti-Gujarati.
“He will never become a national leader unless he changes his stance against people from other states,” Lalji Patel added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
