Sambhal mosque row: Court to hear case on August 5
Sambhal (PTI): A civil court in Chandausi on Monday deferred the hearing in the ongoing dispute over the Shahi Jama Masjid-Harihar temple to August 5 due to the strike by the local bar association.
Civil judge (senior division) Aditya Singh was scheduled to hear the matter.
The Muslim side had previously challenged the maintainability of the case in the Allahabad High Court, but on May 19, the high court upheld the subordinate court's order permitting a court-monitored survey and directed the trial court to proceed with the hearing.
Advocate Shri Gopal Sharma, appearing for the Hindu side, told PTI, “Due to the condolence meeting and strike by the bar association today, the court has fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing.”
District government counsel Prince Sharma confirmed the state government submitted an affidavit in court today.
“The matter pertains to a dispute over the Shahi Jama Masjid and the claimed Harihar Mandir. The high court’s earlier stay was vacated on May 19, and the documents related to that order were submitted in the trial court. Due to the strike today, the next date has now been fixed as August 5,” he said.
The dispute dates back to November 19 last year, when Hindu petitioners, including advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, filed a suit in the Sambhal district court claiming that the mosque was built over a pre-existing temple.
A court-ordered survey was conducted on the same day (November 19), followed by another on November 24. The second survey on November 24 led to significant unrest in Sambhal, resulting in the death of four people and injuries to 29 police personnel.
In connection with the violence, the police registered a named FIR against SP MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and mosque committee head Zafar Ali, along with an FIR against 2,750 unidentified individuals.
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.
