Tushar Mehta takes on Justice Joseph for turning a blind

In a statement during a hearing regarding hate speech, the Supreme Court gave a very significant remark on the importance of the state. It said that hate speech “is happening because the state is impotent, the state is powerless, and the state doesn’t act in time”, and will stop “the moment politics and religion are segregated.” That is actually a very crucial question, and the intensity of the statement shows that the Supreme Court is very concerned about justice in society.

Exchange of words between SC Judge and Solicitor General

But it is just a single part of the hearing. The further dialectical debate unveiled many statements that actually raised questions about courts’ “wise sense of judgement.” Justice K. M. Joseph, heading a bench that also included Justice B. V. Nagarathna, was hearing a plea by Shaheen Abdullah.

A journalist from Kerala is seeking contempt proceedings against the state police of Maharashtra. He blamed the police for not acting to restrain inflammatory speeches at rallies organised by some Hindu outfits despite the court’s direction. During the proceedings, K. M. Joseph’s disappointment was so great that he asked, “Why do we have a state at all when all this is happening?”

But soon, Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general representing the centre, responded that the centre is not silent, and in fact, states like Kerala were silent when the calls for the genocide of Hindus and Christians were made in a PFI rally during May 2022.

He even questioned the bench’s intention by asking why, when the court already knew it, it did not take suo moto cognizance of it. It is noteworthy that Indian courts have the jurisdiction of suo moto, using which they can address any crucial issue in the country that is not brought before them by anyone.

Also read: After Suvendu met SG Tushar Mehta, Mamata is scared of President’s rule and she wants Mehta removed

Is the genocide of Brahmans a joke?

Solicitor General Mehta did not stop there. He further argued that “a spokesperson of DMK” said, “Whatever Periyar says should have been done… If you want equality, you must butcher all Brahmins.”

But unfortunately, Mehta’s statement was less a demand for justice and more a joke for Justice K.M. Joseph. Justice Joseph laughed after listening to the horrible reality and deteriorating conditions of Brahmins in society. But Mehta, disappointed again, argued that “it’s not a laughing matter. I wouldn’t laugh it away… This man does not face F.I.R. Not only that, he continues to be the spokesperson of a recognised political party.”

Also read: Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

Why make Periyar God?

To this, Justice Joseph asked if the Solicitor General Mehta knew who Periyar was. It is good to see that court proceedings are now open to the public. At least we, sitting in our homes, can know the level of arguments and questions being raised on sincere matters of justice.

Nevertheless, Mehta replied to the general knowledge question by saying that he knew who Periyar was and that hate speech cannot be justified just because someone great said it. Indeed, this argument is sensible. I mean, how can a lynching call by a great leader of a faction be entitled to be equivalent to a heavenly verse?

After this, Mehta asked for permission to play a clip of a PFI rally where a child was sloganeering for the genocide of Hindus and Christians. But the bench did not allow him to do so.

The Solicitor General pleaded, “I want Your Lordships to see it. Unfortunately, it’s from Kerala… Let me play a clip. If the petitioner is showing something that is disturbing Your Lordships, and rightly so, this should shock the conscience of the court on two counts: that such a thing has happened, and that this public-spirited man (the petitioner), who hails from Kerala, is not bringing this fact to the notice of this court.”

Also read: Supreme Court tells Modi govt. to declare religious conversion illegal

Double standards

Justice Joseph told him that they knew the developments, and again a debate started between the judge and solicitor general. Mehta said, “If Your Lordships know that, then Your Lordships should have taken suo motu cognisance of this along with it. Why are we shying away from seeing it?”.

To this, Justice Joseph said, “The major problem is when politicians make use of religion for power.” Mehta said the clip from Kerala had nothing to do with politics but was “pure and simple religious hate speech.”

Justice Joseph objected and said, “It has everything to do with politics… Hate is a vicious circle. The state will have to initiate action, and “the moment politics and religion are segregated, all this will stop. We are telling you, whether you take it seriously or not”.

Meanwhile, Justice B.V. Nagarathana tried to balance the situation, and he clearly said that leaders from both sides are indulged in practising hate speech. Citing the examples of Nehru and Vajpayee, Justice Nagarathna categorically differentiated the current leaders from the erstwhile. He highlighted the intellectual depravity of the people of India and showed concern by asking how we will make India No. 1 like this.

Also read: They are old men, poets, Christian pastors— the imagery that Leftists exploit to cover up crimes of the Naxals

As long as Hindus are the majority…

Justice Joseph addressed the counsel for Sakal Hindu Samaj, a party in the case that is alleging hate speech in Maharashtra. Justice Joseph tried to explain the court’s intent by saying that minorities chose to stay in this country and saying ‘Go to Pakistan’ is derogatory. And there are IPC provisions that are used to invoke power. He also said that the majority of people in this country are tolerant, and there are only a few people who are responsible for propagating hatred. Joseph said,” They are like your brothers and sisters… What we are saying is that things should not go to that extent.”

To this, Counsel for Sakal Hindu Samaj said what the court fears will never happen “as long as my client is in the majority in this country.” The bench issued notice of the contempt plea and fixed it for hearing on April 20. This shows what happens in court during the proceedings. Now I leave it to you to deduce how fruitful and impactful discussions are held in the Supreme Court.