On October 10, the Supreme Court of India heard a PIL filed by one Harpreet Sehgal Mansukhani where she made bizarre claims that included things like “Kashmir Files was funded by a political party, there is an attempt to make India a Hindu Rashtra by 2024, Senior BJP leaders admitted to her that minority were killed, and people including teachers, journalists, soldiers, and actors such as Sushant Singh Rajput were ordered to be killed.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Government of India, Home Minister Amit Shah, UP CM Yogi Adityanath, and 38 others have been listed as respondents in the matter. So far, notices have not been issued to anyone.
Harpreet Mansukhani appeared in the court in person. In her petition, Mansukhani cited 72 incidents of alleged hate speeches in the country. She claimed that the Muslim community (minority community) was being targeted with the aim of making India a Hindu Rashtra before the 2024 elections. While appearing in the court, the petitioner “started crying” while mentioning “genocide that must be taking place while she appeared before the court”.
Marked 72 hate speeches as an “arrow that never returns”. Refers to #Kashmirfiles #RSSanthem, and further refers to it as a grave conspiracy.
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) October 10, 2022
While referring to hate speeches, she mentioned Kashmir Files, a film by Vivek Agnihotri that highlighted the genocide of the Kashmiri Hindus in the 1990s, the RSS Anthem and more. She referred to such “hate speeches” as “grave conspiracy”. In her petition, Mansukhani claimed that not only people from the minority but teachers, journalists, soldiers and actors, including Sushant Singh Rajput, were ordered to be killed. It is unclear how she is going to connect the death of an actor to the “conspiracy” to make India a Hindu Rashtra by 2024 or if she will be able to produce any proof that SSR was “killed” as part of “hate speech”.
Advocate further referred to the petition stating that not only minority community, teachers, journalist, soldiers, actors like Sushant Singh Rajput were ordered to be killed.
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) October 10, 2022
During the hearing, the petitioner claimed that she could provide statements of senior BJP leaders on record that minorities were killed. She said, “There [are] admissions with me now saying that they have indeed killed people from the minority community.”
CJI: Then an amicus needs to be appointed in such a case
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) October 10, 2022
Mansukhani: there is admissions with me now saying that they have indeed killed people from the minority community #hatespeech
She further claimed that the issue was raised by retired Army chiefs, presidents etc., who wrote to the PM, but no action was taken.
The bench initially said that normal criminal law proceedings must be undertaken in such cases. CJI Lalit said, “Normal criminal proceedings must be undertaken in these cases. We have to see who is involved and who is not.” Upon the petitioner’s insistence for directions to “curb the conspiracy”, the court asked the petitioner to come back by November 1 with at least 2-3 incidents from the list with complete details on how it happened, when it happened, who all were involved and more. The court said, “For a court to take cognizance of this, we need factual background. We need some samples of cases. Otherwise, it is a random petition.”
CJI: for a court to take cognizance of this we need factual background. We need some sample of cases. otherwise it is a random petition.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) October 10, 2022
Mansukhani: yes i can give you an example right now
Mansukhani made headlines before the Lok Sabha elections
This is not the first time Mansukhani, who is a yoga teacher from Sharjah, has made headlines because of a PIL on hate speeches. In 2019, before the Lok Sabha elections, she filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Election Commission to curb divisive rhetoric. Two petitions were filed in the apex court out of which one was dismissed by the court and the second was withdrawn by the petitioner with the liberty to approach High Court.
