76 Top lawyers write to CJI: Top Supreme Court lawyers have written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana seeking immediate intervention in two recent religious events (one in Delhi and the other in Haridwar), where violence against Muslims has been called for went.
Listing the names of those involved in the hate speech, the lawyers urged the CJI to take suo motu cognizance of the call for ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the absence of concrete police action. The 76 signatories of the letter included eminent lawyers Dushyant Dave, Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, Salman Khurshid and former Patna High Court judge Anjana Prakash.
In the letter, They wrote, “The above incidents and the speeches made during them are not mere hate speech, but an open call for the killing of an entire community.” “The speeches not only pose a grave threat to the unity and integrity of our country, but also endanger the lives of millions of Muslim citizens,” the letter said.
A video from Haridwar’s ‘Dharma Sansad’ created a huge political storm and drew widespread condemnation after it went viral on social media. In the video, religious leaders can be heard openly calling for genocide and use of weapons against Muslims.
In one of the videos, Sadhvi Annapurna (earlier known as Pooja Shakun Pandey) is heard saying, “If you want to eliminate them, kill them, we need 100 soldiers to win it.” Can kill 20 lakhs.”
Haridwar Police has registered a case against three religious leaders, but no concrete action has been taken so far. Those who organized the event and gave abusive language claim that they did nothing wrong.
Following the outcry, Hindu Raksha Sena’s Prabodhanand Giri told the media that he was “not ashamed” of what he said. “I am not afraid of the police. I stand by my statement,” he said.
In a video circulated on social media, he can be heard saying: “Like Myanmar, our police, our politicians, our army and every Hindu should take up arms and conduct a cleanliness drive (ethnic cleansing). Any other There is no option left.”
In their letter to the Chief Justice, the advocates wrote, “It may be noted that no effective steps are taken under the provisions of IPC 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 504, 506, 120B, 34 in respect of earlier hate speeches.” Thus, there is a need for immediate judicial intervention to prevent such incidents which have become the order of the day.”