Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) On 6.12.1992, the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya was demolished. It is alleged that thereafter Shri Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Naib Imarn, Jama Masjid had given an inflammatory speech in which he criticised the Government and the Prime Minister. The speech was really meant to arouse the sentiments of the minority community. On the basis of the said inflammatory speech, an Fir No. 98 of 1993 under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Shri Syed Ahmed Bukhari in Police Station, Jama Masjid, Delhi.

(8) The Court also observed as under : "No sincere efforts have been made by the police" to produce the accused in the Court. Their inaction itself appears to be based on some motive, it is strange that an ordinary criminal of a petty offence like, keeping a knife in his possession, keeping 5/6 country made liquor bottles in his possession, keeping property worth of few rupees without any ownership are arrested at the spot by the police but a person who is using the place of worship for giving inflammatory speech and has made an at attempt of sedition to overthrow the Government established by law, the offence which is punishable upto life imprisonment, has not even been arrested."

(12) In para Ii of the judgment, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed as under: "The in activism with motive of the executive is peril to Indian democracy."

13. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also observed that two organs of the Government - "Legislature and Executive, have become inactive."

(14) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was perhaps, justified in giving directions to the Police Commissioner to execute the non-bailable warrants when bailable and non-bailable warrants were not served against the petitioner in ordinary course. But the Metropolitan Magistrate was certainly not justified in making such sweeping remarks and generalisations regarding the Legislature, Executive and the Police. The learned Magistrate was also not justified in making the general remarks against the petitioner in which he had mentioned that " giving an inflammatory speech, the petitioner had made an attempt of sedition to overthrow the Govemment.''There is nomaterial on record justifying this remark against the petitioner."