Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

That the procedure contemplated under the Preventive Detention Act was scrupulously followed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. Learned Advocate General has stated that the contention of the detenu that the utterances were not made against the Religious Head of a particular community, is a false statement. The particular word 'Aaka' used by the detenu refers to the Prophet and clearly demonstrates that the detenu has targeted a particular religious community and has used abusive language and derogatory statements against their Prophet, which is nothing but hate speeches. The speeches made by the detenu are nothing but hate speeches, which have been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in a catena of cases. Due to the utterances made by the detenu, there was a large scale disturbance to the public peace, which not only resulted in riots, dharnas and protests in different parts of the State, but also resulted in public disorder. Due to the utterances made by the detenu, the communal harmony in the State got adversely effected and resulted in public disorder. The contention of the detenu that the legible copies were not provided AAR, J & JS, J to him is totally a false statement and is contrary to the record. Learned Advocate General has placed on record the original record pertaining to the copies annexed to the writ petition at page Nos.132 to 170 to show that the said copies are legible and readable copies. Except for two or three pages, all the pages furnished to the detenu are in a readable and legible condition. Merely because the petitioner has filed documents, which are illegible, along with the Writ Petition, the same does not mean that the authorities have also provided illegible copies to the detenu. Further, it is contended that there is no dispute with regard to the video circulated from the account being managed by the detenu on YouTube channel wherein the detenu has made derogatory remarks against a particular religious community and their Prophet. That immediately after this video was uploaded by the detenu, spontaneous protests broke out in different parts of the State leading to public disorder, and there was a clamour for arrest of the detenu. That the transcripts of the video and other speeches made by the detenu filed along with the counter clearly demonstrate that the detenu has made derogatory remarks against a particular community and their Prophet, which is nothing but Hate Speech. Merely because the detenu asserts that the said utterances do not refer to the Prophet or any Religion, the said statement cannot be taken on its face value. That this Hon'ble AAR, J & JS, J Court has to watch the video and also read the transcripts, which have been provided along with the counter, to understand the true meaning and real purport of the utterances made by the detenu and the same will reveal that the detenu has made derogatory remarks against a particular religion and their Prophet. That the authority concerned was conscious of the fact that the detenu has been repeatedly making such kind of derogatory speeches and targeting a particular Religion/community only with a view to create public disturbance and public disorder in the State. Even though the detenu is a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) elected from Goshamahal Constituency, he has a chequered criminal history and is involved in more than 100 criminal cases including two murder cases, which are at various stages of investigation. Learned Advocate General has further stated that merely because the detenu is acquitted in some of the criminal cases, the same does not give the detenu a license to perpetuate the hate crimes by making derogatory and hate speeches against a particular community and their Prophet. The authority while passing the impugned order of detention has taken into consideration the three cases viz., Crime Nos.68 and 261 of 2022 of Mangalhat Police Station and Crime No.71 of 2022 of Shahinayathgunj Police Station.

AAR, J & JS, J

17) That insofar as crime No.68 of 2022 is concerned, the same was registered on 19.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 505 (2), 171-C r/w.171-F IPC and Sections 123, 125 of Representation of People Act,1951. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 19.02.2022 passed by the Election Commissioner of India wherein the detenu was issued a show cause notice for the utterances made and he was directed to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice, but the detenu did not bother to file any explanation. Hence, the Election Commissioner was constrained to pass an adverse order against the detenu and the speeches made by the detenu were not only deprecated but he was censured and prohibited from indulging in such kind of activities. Further, the State Election Commissioner was also directed to lodge a criminal complaint against the detenu, pursuant to which, the State Election Commissioner has lodged a criminal complaint before the concerned Police Station and crime No.68 of 2022 was registered against the detenu. The detenu cannot claim that he is not aware of registration of the said FIR as he had received the copies of show cause notice as well as the order passed by the Election Commission of India. The learned Advocate General has also drawn the attention of the Court to the various news paper clippings to buttress his contention that crime No.68 of 2022 was AAR, J & JS, J registered against the detenu and well reported. Learned Advocate General has further stated that the order dated 15.02.2022 of the Election Commissioner speaks for itself and has also drawn the attention of the order passed, wherein the Election Commissioner has referred to the abusive language used by the detenu, but also censured the detenu and issued prohibitory orders.

18) That insofar as crime No.71 of 2022 is concerned, during the Srirama Navami Shobha Yatra, the detenu has sung a song using derogatory remarks against a particular Religion and its followers and a crime was registered on 12.04.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505 (2) of IPC. The learned Advocate General has stated that the detenu has been indulging in these kind of repetitive offences, which clearly indicates that he is a habitual offender. That in spite of number of criminal cases being registered against him, the detenu has not mended his way and indulging in delivering hate speeches and thereby disturbing the public order. That the derogatory remarks and abusive language used by the detenu targeting a particular religion and their Prophet have the propensity to disturb the public peace and communal harmony leading to public disorder, that these hate speeches made by the detenu have to be not only condemned but also deprecated by one and all.