[Jantar Mantar case] Demand for Hindu Rashtra does not attract Section 153A IPC: Preet Singh to Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved orders in the bail plea moved by Preet Singh, an accused in the case registered after anti-Muslim slogans were raised at Jantar Mantar in Delhi last month. (Preet Singh vs. State of NCT Delhi)

. Justice Mukta Gupta reserved orders this afternoon after hearing arguments made by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for Preet Singh and Advocate Tarang Srivastava for the State.

. A substantial part of Jain's arguments focused on how Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth etc.) of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted even if Singh had mentioned in an interview his support for a "Hindu Rashtra."

. This, according to the State, was the most incendiary statement made by Singh, Jain argued. However, the demand for a Hindu Rashtra does not attract Section 153A, IPC, Jain asserted.

. " If Ladyship holds that demand for a Hindu Rashtra comes under the purview of Section 153A, I will not press for bail! " Jain contended.

. As he pressed this argument further, the Court responded by reminding the counsel that he was not in the middle of a speech but, rather, in a courtroom.

"You are not at a platform where you are giving a speech. You can't say the same fact four times, five times. Please address like a counsel", Justice Gupta said.

. Advocate Jain went on to argue that the Bombay High Court had even ruled that an article in the Saamna newspaper, which stated that " the country was partitioned on basis of religion.. all should accept that Hindustan should belong to Hindus", would not attract Section 153A, IPC.

. Apart from Section 153A, all other offences Singh stands accused of are bailable offences, the Court was informed.

. This apart, Singh asserted that he was not involved in giving any inflammatory speeches or raising any slogans against any person or community.

" The slogans mentioned (were raised) , my client was not there. The event was over at 11.45 am. The slogans were raised at 4 pm. It is not the case of my friend also that I was there. The slogans are the genesis of this FIR! My learned friend is trying to make out a case of Section 34, IPC . The second point, the most crucial point, now the entire prosecution story is shifting from slogan chanting to the interview, " Jain contended.

. Advocate Srivastava, on the other hand, asserted that Singh, along with others co-accused in the case, had a common intention to promote ill will against a particular minority community.

. This, he argued was evident from the interviews he gave and a Facebook Live uploaded by one of the co-accused as well. Singh was also present when an online interview was given by co-accused Pinky Chaudhary, in which more incendiary statements were made, the Court was told.

. " During the protest, one of the accused uploaded Facebook live. It is a series of transactions. Even Pinky Chaudhary is standing along with Preet Singh, saying all those things. It is basically a common intention.

Whatever Pinky Chaudhary said in his statement is not very different from what is being chanted. The petitioner cannot say I am not going to accept whatever chanting has occurred. The crux of whatever is being submitted by each of the accused points to one (unclear)... that is against one minority community.

If he was an organizer who was innocent without intent to promote ill will maybe he could have stopped the co-accused from submitting all that the co-accused said. When Deepak Singh's interview has taken place, he cannot say, I am not in knowledge of what all has been said to the media," Srivastava argued.

. Singh had moved the High Court against an August 27 order of Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil rejecting Singh's bail plea.

. Preet Singh was allegedly part of a rally that took place on August 8 in Delhi under the Bharat Jodo Movement against colonial-era laws in the country where anti-Muslim slogans were raised and captured on camera.

. The Court had issued notice in the matter earlier this month.

. As per Singh's bail plea, he was arrested in connection with an FIR citing Sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth etc.) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been in jail since August 10.

. Singh submitted that he was a co-organiser of the event, which aimed to demand the enactment of certain uniform laws for India including a new Penal Code, civil law, tax law, healthcode, labour code etc.

. It was submitted that the organisers of the event (including Singh) had a laudable object of organising the same in national interest, in exercise of their right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Everything Singh has said was within the scope of his free speech rights, stated his plea.

. His plea, however, added that he cannot be penalised for having been aligned to a political view that " secularism" and " socialist" should be deleted from the Constitution.

" The applicant and crores of people of this country believe that those words should not have been introduced in the preamble of Constitution by 42nd Amendment Act. It is relevant to mention that constituent assembly had rejected the move to incorporate the words “Secular” and “Socialist” in the Constitution … the applicant and crores of citizens are of the confirm view that the words Secular and Socialist should be deleted from the preamble of the Constitution. They cannot be penalised for having such political thought," the petition stated.

. It was stated that a section of Indian society has developed a wrong sense of secularism , and adds that while the government is required to follow secularism, " the citizens are not bound to accept secularism ."

"They are free to have their own conscious, faith and belief and act according to their religion, " the plea stated.

. He further submitted:

"It is true that applicant believes and cherish that India should be declared a Hindu Rashtra since this great country Bharat was divided on the basis of religion and Hindus have no separate country in the World whereas there are Islamic and Christian countries… the concept of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is the concept for the establishment of a country governed by ‘Dharma’. ‘Dharma’ means justice to all citizens. In the concept of ‘Dharma’ even the King is bound by law. The corruption, nepotism and present day developing evils are beyond the scope of a ‘Dharma Rajya.’ … the concept of Dharma is not synonymous with the term ‘Religion."

. He added that while he had given a byte in a YouTube interview that he expected India to be declared a Hindu country by April 2022 and that he expected Prime Minister Modi to fulfill the demand of Hindus for a Hindu nation, "the demand for a Hindu nation is no way attracts Section 153A IPC ."

. The rally was organised by former BJP spokesperson and lawyer, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Videos had also emerged from the site of the rally in which people had called for the killing of Muslims.

Upadhyay along with five others were later arrested based on the video.

. Upadhyay, however had denied any links to slogan raising stating that he had left the venue at 12 pm whereas the slogans were raised by 'unknown' miscreants from 5 pm onwards.

Upadhyay was granted bail while the bail plea.

Preet Singh's bail plea was rejected by the Court leading to the present appeal.

. Referring to the rally, Singh has stated in his plea that,

"... not even a single speaker said anything against any person or community... after the function was finished the organizers left the place of meeting at Jantar Mantar. If therafter, any person had said anything or given any byte to media using uncalled for words, the organizers, including the applicant, cannot be held responsible for the same. "

. Singh argued that there is a section of society that is opposed to a Uniform Civil Code and who disliked the event. As such, Singh was only implicated in the case due to political and ideological rivalry, his petition said.

. He added that since no untoward incident occurred after the Jantar Mantar event, " it is clear that nobody was offended. " The matter is being aggravated only to malign the leaders of Hindu outfits, the plea said.

.[Jantar Mantar anti-Muslim sloganeering] Delhi High Court issues notice on bail plea of accused Preet Singh

[Jantar Mantar case] Demand for Hindu Rashtra does not attract Section 153A IPC: Preet Singh to Delhi High Court

Bar & Bench

Related Stories