Delhi Police, which investigated the complaints of Hate speech at a meeting organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini here on On December 19, 2021, he told the Supreme Court that ‘no hate was expressed’ in Delhi event As it is claimed.
in an affidavit in Police in the Supreme Court said, “…no hate was expressed in The event in Delhi against group, community, race, religion, or creed.”
“(was) talking about empowering one religion to prepare for it face Evils that can endanger his existence, with which he is not related from afar call for Genocide of any particular religion,” stated the affidavit.
The affidavit has been submitted in Reply to the notice issued by the court on Petition seeks investigation of allegations of Hate speech in Dharam Sansad in Haridwar and subsequent Delhi event last year.
Police said they received three complaints alleging open calls made for Genocide of Muslims with object of achieve ethnic cleansing. complaints also He referred to Suresh Chavanki’s editor’s letter of news Sudarshan News channel, and claimed to contain examples of What could be called hate speech.
“All complaints have been consolidated and an investigation has been opened,” the police said. After conducting such a deep investigation, the evaluation was made of Video and so on, the respondent did not find any material in The video is according to the complainants’ claim.
In the video of Delhi Incident, No Speech against any particular community. And then after inquiry and after evaluation of In the alleged video, it was concluded that the alleged speech did not reveal any hate words against In particular community As alleged or otherwise. naked look of complaints madethe data allegedly offensiveit will reveal that there are no specific words against In particular community or any community It has been authorized by the assembly or any other person in who – which event,” he said. “In view Of them, the complaints were closed with an inquiry report dated 13.03.2022.”
A police affidavit said, “After she became pregnant out Initial inquiry on The above complaints and after checking the video link and the attached video in respect of His hate speech in Delhi, found out That there are no such words mentioned by the complainant in His complaint was used.”
“nothing use of Such words that mean or can be interpreted as “open calls” for Genocide of Muslim in order ethnic cleansing or conquest call for murder of Full community” in speech,” the police said.
“that results of Inquiries after the visual and audio examination of The evidence also reveals that the speech did not contain any hate speech against In particular communityand people who gathered there with Motivation to save morals of they communityThe letter said.
He said, “Nothing of The words spoken during events in In what way is it openly and frankly describing Indian Muslims as rapists? of Earth lands, as predators of Land, livelihoods and of Hindu womenand nothing has been said or done that could result in the creation of a file environment of Paranoia among any religion, sect or creed.”
Acknowledgment also pointed to the law on Freedom of Speech said ‘It is a vulgar law that basic freedom of Speech under Section 19 (1) (a) may only be reasonably restricted for The aforementioned purposes in Article 19(2), and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of Necessity not quirks and of convenience and benefit.
“we have to practice Tolerance of opinions of others. “Intolerance is as dangerous to democracy as the person himself,” the statement said.
The police said, “The petitioner He tries to draw an incorrect and unreasonable conclusion through isolated passages that ignore main topic and message.
The affidavit said the Supreme Court has time and again Repeat this commitment to freedom of Expression requires that it cannot be suppressed unless the situation created by allowing freedom is stress and community Interest is in danger of extinction. Expected danger should It is not remote, speculative, or improbable. He. She should You have proximity and direct connection with expression. expression of thought should To be intrinsically dangerous to public interest which is not the case in Immediate matter.”
.
