The Supreme Court summons the governments of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and requests an action-taken report

*Paromita Das

The Supreme Court chastised the governments of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand on Tuesday for failing to take preventive measures to curb hate speech during Dharam Sansad-like events.

Concerned about incidents of hate speech, the Supreme Court requested that state governments file affidavits outlining the preventive measures taken to prevent such incidents.

Who said what in the Dharam Sansad saga in the Supreme Court?

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal sought a stay on a proposed Dharam Sansad in Roorkee on Wednesday, claiming that hate speech was witnessed in Dharam Sansad in Himachal Pradesh’s Una, where Yati Narsinghan and Saraswati made controversial remarks, ‘violating his bail conditions.’ “This activity must be halted.”

We want to see if any preventive measures are being taken. Fill out an affidavit outlining the steps you took.

These occurrences do not occur suddenly or overnight. These are announced ahead of time. Did you take action right away or not? “Guidelines are already in place,” the Supreme Court stated. During the Una Dharam Sansad, Narsinghanand said that Hindus should have more children and raise them to be strong so that they can protect their families, according to Sibal. Narsinghanand reportedly claimed that Hindu society was on the decline and that the country’s political system was tilted toward Muslims. When the Uttarakhand government stated that preventive measures were being taken, Justice Khanwilkar instructed the states to follow the guidelines issued in the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision.

The Supreme Court also directed the Uttarakhand government’s lawyers to contact the Home Secretary and the Inspector General of Police, as well as the chief secretary of Uttarakhand, to outline the corrective measures.