Two years after a complaint was registered accusing Ajmer Sharif Dargah chief Syed Sarwar Chisti of delivering an inflammatory speech, a magistrate court here recently closed the case as the prosecution failed to prove the charge.
Meanwhile, the Dakshina Kannada police are yet to submit to court the final report on allegations of hate speech against Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat at a public meeting near Uppinangady in 2012.
These are among the many cases of “hate speeches” pending at various stages. In the latest instance, a case has been registered by Mangaluru police against VHP activist Sadhvi Balika Saraswati on the charge of making an inflammatory speech at the Hindu samjotsava here on March 1.
While most of these cases make big news when registered, investigation and prosecution progress at a snail’s pace. While the police said the delay is because of technical and procedural issues, Byatha N. Jagadish, advocate and human rights activist, said the police were “lax” in investigating the cases and therefore had failed to instil fear of law among the perpetrators.
A senior police officer said a slew of “technical reasons” — lack of eyewitnesses and proof of damage, if any, at places of worship, obtaining experts’ opinion on the authenticity of the audio or video evidence and the need to get experts to translate the speech —were hampering the cases. Besides, they have to secure government sanction to file charge sheet in all hate speech cases. “There have been instances where government has not accorded sanction,” the officer said.
Disagreeing with the police, Mr. Jagadish said there was “lack of intent” towards expeditious investigation and filing of charge sheet. The police can file charge sheet by notifying the court to the sanction expected of the government. “Supreme Court permits this,” he said. Expert opinion, which usually takes time, could be submitted at a later stage.
A senior prosecutor said cases of hate speech had been ending in acquittal because of lack of material evidence showing that the speaker and those accused of damaging property intended to create communal trouble.
