The Evening Wrap: Supreme Court asks Uttarakhand why Haridwar hate speech accused have not been held

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Uttarakhand government to respond to petitions that people accused of delivering hate speeches at a Dharm Sansad organised in Haridwar have not been arrested yet. A Bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana issued notice even as petitioners contended that the declarations of communal hatred made by the speakers at Haridwar were unlike anything seen or heard before. They had made “open calls for the extermination of an entire religious community”, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaising submitted. “There is no law for this kind of hate speech,” Sibal said. He said the incident took a different colour from even the past instances of mob lynchings. The senior lawyer said more of these ‘Dharm Sansads’ had been organised. The next was on January 23 in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, he said. “If this court does not take quick steps, ‘Dharm Sansads’ would be held in Una, Kurukshetra, Dasna, Aligarh and in States where the process of election is going on. The atmosphere of the entire country will be vitiated. No arrests have taken place,” Sibal submitted. The senior lawyer asked the court to list the case on Monday, especially in the light of the event to be held on January 23. However, the court said Monday would not be possible. The Bench advised the petitioners to make a representation to the local authorities, making their apprehensions clear that speeches in these ‘Dharm Sansads’ may run the risk of violating the penal law against hate and were against the judgments of the Supreme Court. The Bench, during the hearing, noted that hate speech had been the subject of several petitions already pending with another Bench of the court. If that was so, this case ought to be tagged with the earlier ones before the other Bench. The CJI, however, said the Haridwar hate speech case would be listed 10 days later, either separately or with the earlier cases. The petitioners, former High Court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali, had highlighted that “hate speeches consisted of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing. The speeches are not mere hate speeches but amount to an open call for murder of an entire community. The speeches thus pose a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of our country but also endanger the lives of millions of Muslim citizens.” The hate speeches were allegedly delivered between December 17 and 19 in Haridwar by Yati Narsinghanand and in Delhi by the ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’. The petitioners sought an independent, credible and impartial probe by a special investigation team into the hate speeches against the Muslim community. The petitioners said “despite the passage of almost three weeks no effective steps have been taken by the police authorities, including non-application of Sections 120B, 121A and 153B of the IPC, 1860 that squarely apply to hate speeches”. “The blatant inaction by the police also came to the forefront when a police officer’s video went viral on the Internet, wherein one of the speakers openly acknowledged the officer’s allegiance with the organisers and speakers of the ‘Dharm Sansad’... the police authorities are hand in glove with the perpetrators of communal hate,” the petitioners argued. Supreme Court appoints panel headed by ex-Judge Indu Malhotra to probe security breach during PM Modi’s visit The Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed a committee chaired by its former judge Indu Malhotra to inquire into a security breach that led to the Prime Minister’s convoy being stuck on a flyover in Punjab on January 5. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana told the committee to submit its confidential report at the earliest. The others on the committee are the Director-General of National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of Inspector-General, the Director-General of Police of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Additional Director-General of Police (Security) of Punjab, and the Registrar-General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court’s constitution of the high-profile committee effectively arrests the functioning of the separate panels formed by Punjab and the Centre to investigate the breach. The court had earlier got the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Registrar-General to seize the security records in connection with the January 5 incident. Both the Centre and Punjab had blamed each other of bias. Poll-bound Punjab had accused the Centre of trying to pile the entire blame of the lapse on it. The Centre had summoned Punjab Police officials for an explanation. “We are of the considered opinion that the questions [regarding the breach] cannot be resolved through one-sided inquiries. A judicial trained and independent mind duly assisted by officers well-acquainted with the security considerations and the Registrar-General of the High Court, who has seized the records pursuant to our orders, will be best suited to look into all the issues and submit a confidential report for the consideration of this court,” Chief Justice Ramana read out from the order. The terms of reference of the Justice Indu Malhotra Committee include finding out the causes of the breach; the persons responsible and to what extent; remedial measures to improve the security of the Prime Minister and other protectees; and any other recommendations for the security of constitutional functionaries. Punjab Advocate-General D.S. Patwalia, in an earlier court hearing, had highlighted the State’s apprehensions it would not get a fair hearing. He had submitted that show cause notices had already been issued by the Centre to its officers, mentioning disciplinary action against them for the security lapse. Patwalia had said that all the State wanted from the Supreme Court was an opportunity for a fair hearing before a neutral committee. “If I am guilty, please hang me and my officers, but give me a fair hearing,” Patwalia had requested the court. After Swami Prasad Maurya, Minister Dara Singh Chauhan quits Adityanath Cabinet In a second big blow to the BJP in just 24 hours, another senior OBC leader Dara Singh Chauhan resigned from the Yogi Adityanath Cabinet, accusing the Government of neglecting the OBC, Dalit, farmers, youth and deprived sections. In his resignation letter to Governor Anandiben Patel, Chauhan, who belongs to the Noniya Chauhan OBC community, said he was “hurt” by the tampering of the reservation of OBCs and Dalits by the BJP Government. He resigned as the Cabinet Minister for Forest, Environment, Zoological Garden departments, following the path of fellow OBC leader Swami Prasad Maurya, who on January 11 tendered his resignation from the Cabinet making similar allegations against the BJP Government. Chauhan, an MLA from Mau’s Madhuban seat, had joined the BJP after quitting the BSP on whose symbol he had won the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Ghosi. Prior to that, he was also a Rajya Sabha member from 1996-2006. Soon after Chauhan quit his ministerial post, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav shared a picture of himself with Chauhan, welcoming the latter into the SP fold. Yadav hailed Chauhan as a “relentless fighter of the struggle for social justice”. The SP and its allies will take the “movement for samta-samanta [equality] to its peak and remove discrimination”, Yadav said. “Sabko samman, sabko sthan [respect for all, a place for all],” Yadav said, coining a new slogan to define his politics of bringing together smaller OBC-based parties to challenge the BJP's arithmetic. BJP leader and Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya tried to do damage-control and said leaders leaving the BJP would themselves have to bear the losses of jumping into “a sinking boat”. He, however, asked “elder brother” Chauhan to reconsider his decision, and said, when a member of the family strays away it hurts him. COVID-19: Teachers, parents irked over Maharashtra govt. decision to close schools The Maharashtra government’s directive to close schools till February 15 in the wake of the spread of the Omicron variant, even in rural areas and parts where there is no rise in number of COVID-19 patients, has irked teachers and parents, with many teacher groups terming it discriminatory and damaging to students who have already lost around two years of primary education. “Will government close down schools in Mumbai and Thane if remote places like Nandurbar or Gadchiroli witness COVID cases? It will not. Then why these remote parts where online education is practically impossible are forced to shut down schools for surge in cases in urban areas?” asked Bhau Chaskar of the Active Teachers Forum (ATF), a teacher in government school in Akole in Ahmednagar district. Public Health Minister Rajesh Tope, asked about the closure, said the Cabinet had discussed this issue. “Cases are increasing in rural areas as well. We do not think there should be any change in the decision. Schools will remain closed for the next 10-15 days at least. Based on the situation after this, we will take a decision,” he said. According to the teachers’ bodies, closing down schools is nothing but illogical when the government has allowed shopping malls, theatres and gyms to function with 50% capacity and suburban local trains to run as per schedule. “With two years of COVID-19 cases, even the school children are now exposed to this virus, despite being in the home. Online education can never be an alternative to physical classes and at a time when schools had reopened they are closed again. It is going to harm an entire generation,” he said. In many rural parts of the State, teachers have decided not to close down the schools with consent letters from parents. Demands have also been made to decentralise the process of closing down schools. The State Primary Teachers Committee, an umbrella body, has written to all its members clarifying that it does not support closure of all schools but the decision should be taken based on the number of patients at village level. In its letter, the association has asked its members not to glorify online education but to present ground report to the administration based on actual availability of android mobile phones per household. “Do not give false information under pressure from the administration. It is not only detrimental to students but also dishonest on our part.” According to sources in the School Education Department, the decision to open schools depends on the recommendations of the task force on COVID-19. “We are focused on the safety of the students. A decision will soon be taken,” a senior official said. Boris Johnson apologises for attending garden party during lockdown Prime Minister Boris Johnson has apologised for attending a garden party during Britain’s coronavirus lockdown in 2020, saying there are things the government “did not get right.” Johnson is facing anger from public and politicians over claims he and his staff flouted pandemic restrictions by socialising when it was banned. Some members of his Conservative Party say he should resign if he can’t quell the furor. Johnson acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he was at the May 2020 garden party at his Downing Street office, though he said that he had considered it a work event. Johnson told lawmakers in the House of Commons: “I want to apologise … With hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside.” An invitation to the “socially distanced drinks” gathering was emailed to about 100 people by a senior prime ministerial aide. At the time, people in Britain were barred by law from meeting more than one person outside their household. On Tuesday, a spokesman declined to comment on the allegations, citing an ongoing investigation by a senior civil servant, Sue Gray, into several alleged parties by government staff. Johnson has previously said that he personally broke no lockdown rules, but his troubles are mounting. Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party, said Johnson’s refusal to say whether he was at the May 2020 party was “astonishing.” “People have been reflecting about what was happening to them at the time in May and many people are still grieving their loved ones who they weren’t able to say goodbye to at the time, and to think the prime minister was laughing and partying is just unforgivable,” she told the BBC. Rayner said that if Johnson had “lied to the British public, lied to Parliament and he has attended parties during lockdown, then his position is untenable.” The scandal, dubbed “partygate”, has become the biggest crisis of Johnson’s two-and-a-half years in power. During the U.K.’s first lockdown, which began in March 2020 and lasted for more than two months, almost all gatherings were banned. Millions of people were cut off from friends and family, and even barred from visiting dying relatives in hospitals. Thousands were fined by police for breaking the ban on gatherings. So there has been widespread anger at claims Johnson’s Conservative government flouted the rules it had imposed on the rest of the country by holding garden parties, Christmas get-togethers and office quiz nights in Downing Street, which is both the prime minister’s home and his office. Opposition politicians are calling for Johnson’s resignation. More worryingly for the prime minister, many members of his own party are increasingly concerned about Johnson’s judgment and leadership. Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The number of reported coronavirus cases from India stood at 3,60,92,189 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 4,86,270. In Brief Retail inflation rose to 5.59 % in December, mainly due to an uptick in food prices, government data showed on Monday. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) based retail inflation was 4.91 % in November 2021 and 4.59 % in December 2020. As per the data released by the National Statistical Office (NSO), food inflation rose to 4.05 % in December this fiscal compared to 1.87 % in the preceding month. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 12 JANUARY 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Haridwar hate speech: Supreme Court asks Uttarakhand why accused have not been held The Supreme Court on Wednesday [asked the Uttarakhand government to respond to petitions]( that people accused of delivering hate speeches at a Dharm Sansad organised in Haridwar have not been arrested yet. A Bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana issued notice even as petitioners contended that the declarations of communal hatred made by the speakers at Haridwar were unlike anything seen or heard before. They had made “open calls for the extermination of an entire religious community”, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaising submitted. “There is no law for this kind of hate speech,” Sibal said. He said the incident took a different colour from even the past instances of mob lynchings. The senior lawyer said more of these ‘Dharm Sansads’ had been organised. The next was on January 23 in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, he said. “If this court does not take quick steps, ‘Dharm Sansads’ would be held in Una, Kurukshetra, Dasna, Aligarh and in States where the process of election is going on. The atmosphere of the entire country will be vitiated. No arrests have taken place,” Sibal submitted. The senior lawyer asked the court to list the case on Monday, especially in the light of the event to be held on January 23. However, the court said Monday would not be possible. The Bench advised the petitioners to make a representation to the local authorities, making their apprehensions clear that speeches in these ‘Dharm Sansads’ may run the risk of violating the penal law against hate and were against the judgments of the Supreme Court. The Bench, during the hearing, noted that hate speech had been the subject of several petitions already pending with another Bench of the court. If that was so, this case ought to be tagged with the earlier ones before the other Bench. The CJI, however, said the Haridwar hate speech case would be listed 10 days later, either separately or with the earlier cases. The petitioners, former High Court judge Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali, had highlighted that “hate speeches consisted of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing. The speeches are not mere hate speeches but amount to an open call for murder of an entire community. The speeches thus pose a grave threat not just to the unity and integrity of our country but also endanger the lives of millions of Muslim citizens.” The hate speeches were allegedly delivered between December 17 and 19 in Haridwar by Yati Narsinghanand and in Delhi by the ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’. The petitioners sought an independent, credible and impartial probe by a special investigation team into the hate speeches against the Muslim community. The petitioners said “despite the passage of almost three weeks no effective steps have been taken by the police authorities, including non-application of Sections 120B, 121A and 153B of the IPC, 1860 that squarely apply to hate speeches”. “The blatant inaction by the police also came to the forefront when a police officer’s video went viral on the Internet, wherein one of the speakers openly acknowledged the officer’s allegiance with the organisers and speakers of the ‘Dharm Sansad’... the police authorities are hand in glove with the perpetrators of communal hate,” the petitioners argued. [underlineimg] Supreme Court appoints panel headed by ex-Judge Indu Malhotra to probe security breach during PM Modi’s visit The Supreme Court on Wednesday [appointed a committee chaired by its former judge Indu Malhotra]( to inquire into [a security breach that led to the Prime Minister’s convoy being stuck on a flyover in Punjab]( on January 5. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana told the committee to submit its confidential report at the earliest. The others on the committee are the Director-General of National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of Inspector-General, the Director-General of Police of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Additional Director-General of Police (Security) of Punjab, and the Registrar-General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court’s constitution of the high-profile committee effectively arrests the functioning of the separate panels formed by Punjab and the Centre to investigate the breach. The court had earlier got the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Registrar-General to seize the security records in connection with the January 5 incident. Both the Centre and Punjab had blamed each other of bias. Poll-bound Punjab had accused the Centre of trying to pile the entire blame of the lapse on it. The Centre had summoned Punjab Police officials for an explanation. “We are of the considered opinion that the questions [regarding the breach] cannot be resolved through one-sided inquiries. A judicial trained and independent mind duly assisted by officers well-acquainted with the security considerations and the Registrar-General of the High Court, who has seized the records pursuant to our orders, will be best suited to look into all the issues and submit a confidential report for the consideration of this court,” Chief Justice Ramana read out from the order. The terms of reference of the Justice Indu Malhotra Committee include finding out the causes of the breach; the persons responsible and to what extent; remedial measures to improve the security of the Prime Minister and other protectees; and any other recommendations for the security of constitutional functionaries. Punjab Advocate-General D.S. Patwalia, in an earlier court hearing, had highlighted the State’s apprehensions it would not get a fair hearing. He had submitted that show cause notices had already been issued by the Centre to its officers, mentioning disciplinary action against them for the security lapse. Patwalia had said that all the State wanted from the Supreme Court was an opportunity for a fair hearing before a neutral committee. “If I am guilty, please hang me and my officers, but give me a fair hearing,” Patwalia had requested the court. [underlineimg] After Swami Prasad Maurya, Minister Dara Singh Chauhan quits Adityanath Cabinet In a second big blow to the BJP in just 24 hours, [another senior OBC leader Dara Singh Chauhan resigned from the Yogi Adityanath Cabinet]( accusing the Government of neglecting the OBC, Dalit, farmers, youth and deprived sections. [Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav is with Dara Singh Chauhan in Lucknow after the latter quit the Yogi Adityanath Cabinet on January 12, 2022. Photo: Twitter/@yadavakhilesh]  In his resignation letter to Governor Anandiben Patel, Chauhan, who belongs to the Noniya Chauhan OBC community, said he was “hurt” by the tampering of the reservation of OBCs and Dalits by the BJP Government. He resigned as the Cabinet Minister for Forest, Environment, Zoological Garden departments, following the path of fellow OBC leader Swami Prasad Maurya, who on January 11 tendered his resignation from the Cabinet making similar allegations against the BJP Government. Chauhan, an MLA from Mau’s Madhuban seat, had joined the BJP after quitting the BSP on whose symbol he had won the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Ghosi. Prior to that, he was also a Rajya Sabha member from 1996-2006. Soon after Chauhan quit his ministerial post, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav shared a picture of himself with Chauhan, welcoming the latter into the SP fold. Yadav hailed Chauhan as a “relentless fighter of the struggle for social justice”. The SP and its allies will take the “movement for samta-samanta [equality] to its peak and remove discrimination”, Yadav said. “Sabko samman, sabko sthan [respect for all, a place for all],” Yadav said, coining a new slogan to define his politics of bringing together smaller OBC-based parties to challenge the BJP's arithmetic. BJP leader and Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya tried to do damage-control and said leaders leaving the BJP would themselves have to bear the losses of jumping into “a sinking boat”. He, however, asked “elder brother” Chauhan to reconsider his decision, and said, when a member of the family strays away it hurts him. [underlineimg] COVID-19: Teachers, parents irked over Maharashtra govt. decision to close schools The Maharashtra government’s directive to close schools till February 15 in the wake of the spread of the Omicron variant, even in rural areas and parts where there is no rise in number of COVID-19 patients, has [irked teachers and parents]( with many teacher groups terming it discriminatory and damaging to students who have already lost around two years of primary education. “Will government close down schools in Mumbai and Thane if remote places like Nandurbar or Gadchiroli witness COVID cases? It will not. Then why these remote parts where online education is practically impossible are forced to shut down schools for surge in cases in urban areas?” asked Bhau Chaskar of the Active Teachers Forum (ATF), a teacher in government school in Akole in Ahmednagar district. Public Health Minister Rajesh Tope, asked about the closure, said the Cabinet had discussed this issue. “Cases are increasing in rural areas as well. We do not think there should be any change in the decision. Schools will remain closed for the next 10-15 days at least. Based on the situation after this, we will take a decision,” he said. According to the teachers’ bodies, closing down schools is nothing but illogical when the government has allowed shopping malls, theatres and gyms to function with 50% capacity and suburban local trains to run as per schedule. “With two years of COVID-19 cases, even the school children are now exposed to this virus, despite being in the home. Online education can never be an alternative to physical classes and at a time when schools had reopened they are closed again. It is going to harm an entire generation,” he said. In many rural parts of the State, teachers have decided not to close down the schools with consent letters from parents. Demands have also been made to decentralise the process of closing down schools. The State Primary Teachers Committee, an umbrella body, has written to all its members clarifying that it does not support closure of all schools but the decision should be taken based on the number of patients at village level. In its letter, the association has asked its members not to glorify online education but to present ground report to the administration based on actual availability of android mobile phones per household. “Do not give false information under pressure from the administration. It is not only detrimental to students but also dishonest on our part.” According to sources in the School Education Department, the decision to open schools depends on the recommendations of the task force on COVID-19. “We are focused on the safety of the students. A decision will soon be taken,” a senior official said. [underlineimg] Boris Johnson apologises for attending garden party during lockdown Prime Minister [Boris Johnson has apologised for attending a garden party during Britain’s coronavirus lockdown in 2020]( saying there are things the government “did not get right.” [A video grab from footage broadcast by the U.K. Parliament’s Parliamentary Recording Unit shows British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons in London on January 12, 2022. Photo: Parliamentary Recording Unit via AFP]  Johnson is facing anger from public and politicians over claims he and his staff flouted pandemic restrictions by socialising when it was banned. Some members of his Conservative Party say he should resign if he can’t quell the furor. Johnson acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he was at the May 2020 garden party at his Downing Street office, though he said that he had considered it a work event. Johnson told lawmakers in the House of Commons: “I want to apologise … With hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside.” An invitation to the “socially distanced drinks” gathering was emailed to about 100 people by a senior prime ministerial aide. At the time, people in Britain were barred by law from meeting more than one person outside their household. On Tuesday, a spokesman declined to comment on the allegations, citing an ongoing investigation by a senior civil servant, Sue Gray, into several alleged parties by government staff. Johnson has previously said that he personally broke no lockdown rules, but his troubles are mounting. Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party, said Johnson’s refusal to say whether he was at the May 2020 party was “astonishing.” “People have been reflecting about what was happening to them at the time in May and many people are still grieving their loved ones who they weren’t able to say goodbye to at the time, and to think the prime minister was laughing and partying is just unforgivable,” she told the BBC. Rayner said that if Johnson had “lied to the British public, lied to Parliament and he has attended parties during lockdown, then his position is untenable.” The scandal, dubbed “partygate”, has become the biggest crisis of Johnson’s two-and-a-half years in power. During the U.K.’s first lockdown, which began in March 2020 and lasted for more than two months, almost all gatherings were banned. Millions of people were cut off from friends and family, and even barred from visiting dying relatives in hospitals. Thousands were fined by police for breaking the ban on gatherings. So there has been widespread anger at claims Johnson’s Conservative government flouted the rules it had imposed on the rest of the country by holding garden parties, Christmas get-togethers and office quiz nights in Downing Street, which is both the prime minister’s home and his office. Opposition politicians are calling for Johnson’s resignation. More worryingly for the prime minister, many members of his own party are increasingly concerned about Johnson’s judgment and leadership. [underlineimg] Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The [number of reported coronavirus cases from India]( stood at 3,60,92,189 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 4,86,270. [underlineimg] In Brief [Retail inflation rose to 5.59 % in December]( mainly due to an uptick in food prices, government data showed on Monday. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) based retail inflation was 4.91 % in November 2021 and 4.59 % in December 2020. As per the data released by the National Statistical Office (NSO), food inflation rose to 4.05 % in December this fiscal compared to 1.87 % in the preceding month. [underlineimg] Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. Today's Top Picks [[Election campaign funding by political parties] Election campaign funding by political parties]( [[Can India’s best stop badminton’s new superstar Loh Kean Yew? | In Focus podcast] Can India’s best stop badminton’s new superstar Loh Kean Yew? | In Focus podcast]( [[Daily Quiz | India's Grandmasters] Daily Quiz | India's Grandmasters]( [[How Tamil Nadu’s farmers revived heritage rice varieties over decades] How Tamil Nadu’s farmers revived heritage rice varieties over decades]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](