UP DGP Orders Suo Motu Action against Hate Speech without Waiting for a Complaint | Exclusive

The Uttar Pradesh (UP) police chief has ordered suo motu action against instances of hate speech in the state, without waiting for a complaint.

This comes after the Supreme Court (SC) had earlier asked three states, including Uttar Pradesh, for a report on action taken in such cases. News18 has a copy of the orders issued earlier this month by UP Director General of Police (DGP) Devendra Singh Chauhan ordering strict action against any hate crime or hate speech.

“It is ordered that in case of hate speech or hate crime, upon receipt of a complaint, or in event of no complaint, the police must take self-cognisance, and lodge a first information report (FIR) and take action against the accused,” the DGP’s order says.

He has also referred to the aforesaid Supreme Court (SC) order to say any negligence in following these orders could be seen as “contempt of court” orders and officials concerned could be acted against.

WHAT DID SC SAY?

The SC had issued a notice to the governments of UP, Delhi and Uttarakhand on October 21 this year, asking for a report on what action had been taken in cases of hate speeches mentioned in a petition filed by a person named Shaheen Abdullah who alleged that hate speeches against Muslims were rampant in the country.

As interim directions, the SC ordered the three states that as and when any speech or action takes place, which attracts Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, suo motu action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against offenders in accordance with law. The SC also asked the states to issue directions to their subordinates so that appropriate action in law will be taken at the earliest.

“We further make it clear that such action will be taken irrespective of the religion that the maker of the speech or the person who commit such act belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the Preamble, is preserved and protected,” the SC had said in its October order.

Kapil Sibal had represented the petitioner in the SC, saying the complaint was one of despondency and angst arising from the perception that despite suitable provisions in penal law being available, there is inaction or rather total inaction.

The plea had said there were a series of hate speeches by various persons against the Muslim community and the transgressions have only increased.

Read all the Latest India News here