PIL seeking action against BJP leaders for hate speech dismissed by Karnataka High Court

PIL was filed based on the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the "Tehseen Poonawalla" case. The HC deemed it politically motivated

South First Desk

Published Jul 09, 2024 | 2:22 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 09, 2024 | 2:22 PM

The Karnataka High Court. (Creative Commons)

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, 9 July, dismissed a PIL filed by one Mohammed Khaleeulla seeking action against Karnataka BJP leaders who have allegedly made hate speeches.

BJP MP Renukacharya, CT Ravi, Tejasvi Surya and Prathap Simha were a few of the Karnataka BJP leaders, against who the petitioner sought action.

The petitioner claimed that he had come across alleged speeches through social media platforms.

Calling the PIL “politically motivated”, the high court dismissed it. As reported by LiveLaw, the division bench headed by Chief Justice NV Anjaria further said, “Petitions filed like public interest with a political motive cannot be entertained.”

The order further found the allegations were too general, and lacking authentication.

“Why are you misusing the platform of the High Court by filing such petitions? Why are you wasting the time of courts by filing such petitions with omnibus prayers?” the Judge sternly remarked while dismissing the plea.

The order also noted that the petition was filed without mentioning the “avocation”.

The order read: “Without disclosing avocation the petition is filed, the petitioner claims to be a social activist. Prayer in the petition is to take preventive remedial and punitive measures against private respondents, No 8 to 17 in respect of their alleged speeches.”

Dismissing the petition, the court said, “No case is made out to entertain the present petition. It is liable to be dismissed with cost. However, taking a lenient view it is summarily dismissed.”

Also Read: Armstrong murder is symptomatic of deteriorating law and order in Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court guidelines

The PIL sought a direction for the government to broadcast on TV, radio and other public platforms that ob violence, hate speech and mob lynching would invite serious consequences under the law—which is one of the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Tahseen Poonawalla case.

It also sought fast-track trial in such cases.

The PIL was filed based on the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in respect of hate speeches and mob lynchings in the “Tehseen Poonawalla” case.

In the said case, the Supreme Court recognised that the acts of lynching where private citizens take law into their own hands is illegal and cannot be condoned lay forward a set of guidelines under Sections 153 and 295A of IPC.

• The Supreme Court recommended the parliament to create a special law against lynching.
• Appointment of nodal officers in each district, who is not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
• State governments were directed to identify the districts affected by cow vigilantism and mob lynchings within three weeks of the judgement (17 July, 2018).
• Regular review meeting—once a month at the district level, and once a quarter at the state level.
• Home department of India to work with state governments to sensitise the law enforcement agencies.
• The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically tried by designated courts/Fast Track Courts earmarked for that purpose in each district.

(Edited by Sumavarsha Kandula)

Follow us