Equality before the law: A mirage?

What Sharma and Jindal said explicitly violates the specific restrictions on the fundamental right to the freedom of speech

The recent events following the offensive comments against Prophet Mohammed by now suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and her expelled colleague Naveen Jindal throw up a question: Is there the rule of law in the administration of justice?

Those comments led to riots in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and as the news travelled abroad, Muslim countries rose in protest, some summoned Indian ambassadors and expressed strong disapproval, forcing the Indian government to dismiss the spokespersons of the party in government as "fringe" elements whose remarks did not represent the views of either the
government or the party.

This was rich, coming from a party whose leaders, including in Parliament, state legislatures, and Centre and state governments, have regularly indulged in minority bashing. Many are votaries of turning India into a Hindu Rashtra, a land exclusively for Hindus. That, however, is another issue.

To return to the present instance, one thing is abundantly clear. What Nupur Sharma and Navin Jindal said explicitly violates the specific restrictions on the fundamental right to the freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The "reasonable restrictions" listed in Article 19(2) mention that it should not affect "friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality", among other things.

Also read: Nupurgate and after

Now consider the action taken against the accused in the case. The BJP suspended Nupur Sharma and expelled Jindal. The Delhi Police "swung into action" – ten days after the first offence, following the international furore. While it did register cases against them, in a curious balancing act, it also booked several others from both Hindu and Muslim communities.

Two FIRs were registered. In the first, eight people were named, including former BJP media head Naveen Kumar Jindal, whose primary membership of the party was recently cancelled; journalist Saba Naqvi; Pooja Shakun Pandey, an office-bearer of the Hindu Mahasabha; Maulana Mufti Nadeem from Rajasthan; and Shadam Chauhan, chief spokesperson of the Peace Party. The second FIR, registered under similar charges, named Nupur Sharma, the recently-suspended spokesperson of the BJP, and other social media users.

Other prominent individuals mentioned in the FIRs include All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi, controversial Hindutva priest Yati Narsinghanand, Abdur Rehman, Gulzar Ansari, and Anil Kumar Meena.

Perhaps the Delhi Police hoped this would make it look even-handed. It has been pulled up now and then for selective action.

People weren't impressed, though—commentators on various social media news channels criticised and mocked it. On Friday, there were reports of widespread protests in different parts of the country, condemning the comments of the BJP spokespersons and demanding their arrest.

The Delhi Police did make arrests of protestors and those who indulged in violence. It also arrested people protesting the case against Lok Sabha MP from Hyderabad, Asaduddin Owaisi, who was wondering what he had been booked for. The Delhi Police FIR doesn't say what offence he had committed, Owaisi told a YouTube news channel. Some FIR, that. If what Owaisi says is true, watching how the case proceeds and fares in court would be interesting.

Talking of courts, the Delhi Police has had some interesting time there. In April, it filed a report in the Supreme Court claiming no hate speeches were made at an event organised by the Hindu Yuva Vahini on December 19 last year, where a call was given to fight and even kill to make India a land exclusively for Hindus. The Delhi Police affidavit innocently claimed that
it wasn't directed against any particular community and didn't amount to hate speech. After some education and an order from the court, it changed its stance. "Hate speech case against Hindutva body after Supreme Court ire" declared the headline in the Hindustan Times.

The report said that in the second affidavit filed on Saturday evening, the Delhi Police drastically reversed from its previous stand to state that an FIR had been registered on May 4 under charges relating to hate speech and promoting disharmony between communities. The FIR was lodged at the Okhla Industrial Area police station, said the affidavit.

If in Owaisi's case and others booked this time, the FIR mentions names but not the charges against them, in the Okhla FIR, it mentioned the charges but did not disclose the name of any person who has been made an accused.

The Delhi Police isn't alone in this. The Uttarakhand Police has been no better. The first arrest for hate speech at Dharam Sansad in December at Hardwar was made in January after public uproar when videos of the event were widely circulated on social media and a day after the Supreme Court sought a response from the state government on what it had done about it.

The Uttarakhand Police arrested Jitendra Narayan Tyagi, the former Uttar Pradesh Shia Waqf Board chairman who, until the previous month, went by the name Waseem Rizvi. The main speaker and organiser of the event, Yati Narsinghanand, was arrested days later.

Contrast this with the alacrity with which the Delhi Police arrested Delhi University professor Ratan Lal over a social media post related to claims of a 'Shivalinga' at Varanasi's Gyanvapi mosque. Lal got relief from the court, which noted that while it was true that the accused did an act that was avoidable considering the sensibilities of persons around him and the public at large, the post, though reprehensible, does not indicate an attempt to promote hatred between communities, the court said. India is a country of more than 130 crore people and any subject can have 130 crore different views and perceptions, it said.

The court noted that the social media post of Lal, who teaches History at the Hindu College, may appear to be a failed attempt at satire regarding a controversial subject that has backfired, resulting in the FlR. It further noted that the accused, in his personal life, was a proud follower of the Hindu religion.

The Assam Police showed similar enthusiasm in travelling 2,500 kilometres to arrest Jignesh Mevani from the Banaskantha district in Gujarat. The arrest on a complaint by a local BJP leader at the Kokrajhar police station on April 19, against a purported tweet from Mevani's account which said Prime Minister Narendra Modi "considered Godse as God". This was part of a tweet which urged Modi to appeal for "peace and harmony" during his visit to Gujarat, said the complaint. Mevani was released on bail from the court.

In 2021, it was Madhya Pradesh Police. It arrested a comedian Munawar Faruqui for a joke he didn't crack. The police picked him up and jailed him on a complaint from Eklavya Singh Gaud, son of local BJP MLA Malini Laxman Singh Gaur, that he had hurt religious sentiments by making indecent remarks against Hindu deities at his standup show in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Faruqui got bail after over a month in jail. Last heard the police had yet to file a charge sheet in the case.

(Rajesh Sinha is a journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.