[Tripura violence] State affidavit is whataboutery on West Bengal violence: Prashant Bhushan

The Tripura government's affidavit in the case seeking probe into the violence and hate crimes that took place in Tripura last October is replete with whataboutery, advocate Prashant Bhushan told the Supreme Court on Monday [Ehtesham Hashmi vs. Union of India]..Bhushan, who was representing petitioner Ehtesham Hashmi, said that the State's response is all about why petitioners did not examine West Bengal post-poll violence and chose to highlight Tripura violence alone."I have seen whataboutery in TV but this reply is all about what about West Bengal violence and why did you (not) probe. This does not show State in good light. For the State to do whataboutery in such a thing is unbecoming of the State. I understand that is the case with C grade channels," he said.Bhushan sought time to file a rejoinder affidavit, which was granted by the Court. The matter will be heard again on Monday next week..The plea by advocate Ehtesham Hashmi had contended that he had personally visited riot-affected areas of the State along with other Delhi-based advocates, and published a fact-finding report about the visit.The following findings were, inter alia, published in the report:a) 12 Mosques were damaged;b) 9 shops owned by Muslim businessmen were damaged;c) 3 houses owned by Muslims were vandalised.The above findings were arrived at by the petitioner after meeting with families and persons who were at the receiving end of the vandalism, the plea said.However, Hashmi said in his petition that instead of taking action against the miscreants and rioters, the police took action against those who spoke against the same.In response, the State government had submitted that the plea was "selective" in nature since the petitioner was silent when a "larger scale communal violence" occurred in West Bengal in May 2021 after the Bengal State Assembly elections.In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Tripura government said that a series of violent incidents had shook West Bengal before and after the State assembly elections that was "larger in magnitude" compared to the Tripura violence, but the public interest of the petitioner was aroused only selectively during the latter."No individuals or group of individuals professionally functioning as public spirited persons can selectively invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to achieve some apparent but undisclosed motive," the affidavit said.