If you ignore hate crime, then one day it will come for you: Supreme Court laments delay in filing FIR in 2021 Noida case

The Supreme Court on Monday lamented the delay in registration of a criminal complaint by the Uttar Pradesh Police in connection with an alleged hate crime that took place at Noida in 2021. (Kazeem Ajmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh).A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna directed the State authorities to produce copies of the complaint and also information on whether the accused are still behind bars.Addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, who appeared for the State, Justice Joseph remarked that it is the duty of a secular State to weed out such hate crimes."It is said he was wearing his cap showing his religion. There is no space for hate crime on basis of religion in a secular country; it has to be rooted out and when State has the will, it has to be seen that it ends. It is the primary duty of the state. When a person is wearing the cap...there can be other crimes along with hate crime. When such crimes are not acted against then an atmosphere is fostered which is a dangerous issue and it has to be rooted out from our lives," the Court observed..The Court asked that the Uttar Pradesh government to not sweep the incident under the carpet, and advised it to ensure that its police officials set an example at par with developed nations."Will you not acknowledge that there is a hate crime and you will sweep it under the carpet? I am not saying anything adverse; we are only expressing our anguish. Be it in minority or majority, certain rights are there which are inherent in human beings. You are born into a family and raised in one; but we stand out as a nation. You have to take this seriously.".The Supreme Court Court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking steps to be taken against hate speech incidents.In July last year, the top court had directed the Union Home Ministry to prepare a detailed chart outlining the compliance of states with the general directions issued by it in the judgments of Shakti Vahini and Tehseen Poonawalla, towards curbing hate speech.In September, the apex court had taken a very dim view of the functioning of mainstream television news channels in the country, stating that they often give space for hate speech and then escape without any sanctions. Further, it observed that politicians benefit the most out of their hate speech getting a platform.In October, the Court had ordered the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without looking at the religion of the offenders.The judges had expressed shock at some of the statements and hate speech made against minority communities during recent religious congregations..During the last hearing, the Court took a dim view of the functioning of the National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), observing that television channels in India are creating divisions in the society since such channels are driven by agenda and compete to sensationalise news.The Central government had responded by saying that it is planning to introduce comprehensive amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to tackle hate speech.The Court had asked the states to make their position clear on the broader issues projected in the case, and asked Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde and Advocate Anas Tanwir to submit draft guidelines in this regard..Today, the Court heard the plea of 62-year-old Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who was a victim of an alleged hate crime at Noida in July 2021. Sherwani has sought action against those who tortured him and against the police officers who refused to take action..Senior Advocate Huzaifa Ahmadi, appearing for Sherwani, began by summarising the case facts. He said,"Please see the attitude of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Order of this Court led to an FIR and now they say that they are yet to probe, but deny any hate crime. What investigation can we expect at all? Let me assume that there was no hate crime, but why was no FIR not lodged on the morning of 4th?"He stressed that the fact that the abuses were made on the basis of the petitioner's religion shows that it was a hate crime as per Poonawala..The Bench noted that the petitioner came directly to the top court, with Justice Joseph initially remarking,"This petitioner at least has the wherewithal to approach the Supreme Court and thus we cannot say that this case is a pan-India one and it cannot be symptomatic of what is happening across India. We do not want tomorrow to flood this court."Ahmadi argued that the State owed his client reparations, and pointed out that the additional affidavit contends it was not a hate crime, but the work of a 'screwdriver gang'..When the Bench asked the ASG about the nature of the injuries in the case, ASG Nataraj said,"Of course if the person resists, then it might lead to injury." Justice Joseph then remarked, "You are surely not arguing to protect them! Resist? Because he was wearing a skull cap? Let us not deny that there indeed exists people in this country who have communal attitude and they usually do it." The ASG then submitted that no aspect of it being a hate crime was divulged at the time to the Delhi Police, and the petitioner had leaked details to the media rather than approaching higher-ups. "The intention of the victim was something else in the entire case. Do not know if someone else is behind this...the continuous conduct of the petitioner...Belonging to one community does not make it a hate crime."Justice Joseph then made it clear that the top court would have to swiftly tackle hate crime frontally, and could not let such incidents be whitewashed. "A dumb person was continuously clobbered and then it was found that the victim was Hindu. If you ignore this, then one day it will come for you. No problem for the protected class. but it affects the common man, we cannot compromise on their security."The judges also remarked that victims may hesitate to approach the police in such cases, and so should not be treated in a disparaging manner when they do."Solutions can be found only when you recognise the problem. There is a growing consensus around hate speech." .In its order in the matter, the top court stated,"We do note with some distress that it comes late in the day since information for the FIR was furnished on July 5, 2021... We direct Uttar Pradesh to produce FIRs mentioned in the additional affidavit. Affidavit should indicate as to when persons involved in June 2021 were apprehended and when they were bailed out. Let affidavit be filed in 2 weeks from today."The matter will next be heard on March 3, 2023.Pertinently, as the hearing drew to a close, the judges remarked that under its plenary powers under Article 142, it could allow collection of oral evidence towards the petitioner's claim that the FIR needed to have sections dealing with religious hate crimes added..Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad also appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..[Follow our coverage of today's hearing].[Read order]