Rule of law is the sacrosanct governing principle in our plural and multi cultural society, court said its order rejecting bail plea
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Hindu Raksha Dal president Bhupinder Tomar alias Pinky Chaudhary, who allegedly raised anti-Muslim slogans at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, saying we are not a Taliban State.
Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil dismissed the application of Bhupinder Tomar and said that in the past such incidents have flared communal tensions leading to riots and loss to life and property, reports PTI,
Tomar was purportedly seen making inflammatory remarks in an interview to a local news channel on August 8, the day incendiary slogans were raised at a rally named ‘Bharat Jodo Andolan’ called at Jantar Mantar.
The video was placed as evidence before the court by the police who opposed Chaudhary’s pre-arrest bail plea.
We are not Taliban State. Rule of law is the sacrosanct governing principle in our plural and multi cultural society. While the whole of India is celebrating ‘azadi ka amrut mahotsav’ there are some minds still chained with Intolerant and self centric beliefs, the judge said in the order passed on August 21, according to the report.
The court said complicity of the accused in the case was ‘prima facie’ apparent from the available evidence and the accusations against him were serious and severe in nature.
History is not immune where such incidents have fared communal tensions leading to riots and causing loss to life and property of general public, the court order said.
The police had imposed the pre-arrest bail application, alleging that the accused used the platform at Jantar Mantar to create communal disharmony and to give communal colour to their plans, incited the youth to propagate against a particular religion, despite the sanction to gather refused by the competent authority.
The court said the interview on local channel was indicative of the calculative design on the part of the accused to promote hatred and ill will amongst other sections of the community.
The court further said that even though the right to freedom of speech was a fundamental right, one of the most cherished natural right enshrined in the Constitution under Article 19(1)(a), but it was not an unfettered right .
It is not absolute. Nor can it be, extended to transgress upon fundamental right of other people nor can it be expanded to the acts pre-judicial to maintenance of peace; harmony and public order; nor can it be permitted to invade and erode the secular fabric of our society, judge said.
