Preventing a citizen from voicing a confidential opinion against any law is a violation of the right to free speech

Preventing a citizen from voicing a confidential opinion against any law or law passed by Parliament is a violation of the right to free speech and the principles of democracy, Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi argued before the Delhi High Court opposing the plea of contempt. speech of FIR against them in February 2020 riots here.
In two separate affidavits, the Gandhis said that no case was made out for the court to direct the registration of an FIR against them and there was no requirement to order the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. No interference and the case for issuing direction to register FIR against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi has not been made out and no interference is required by this Court to issue any order.
Hearing a series of petitions related to the 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, the Supreme Court on July 13 allowed several amendment pleas seeking to make political leaders, including Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, parties to the FIR and probe against the leaders for allegedly making hate speech to a municipal fire. On Monday, Justice Siddharth Mridul and Amit Sharma posted the matter for further hearing on September 27.
In his affidavits filed in response to the petitions seeking the FIR, Gandhi said that preventing a citizen from forming, holding and expressing a bona fide opinion in the public interest on a law passed by Parliament is not a reasonable restriction and violates the fundamental principles on which our democracy is founded. Preventing citizens from expressing their honest opinion against any proposal or law passed by the government and publishing it to inform, create debate, build public opinion for reforms/changes is a violation of our right to freedom of speech, affidavits. , filed through advocate Tarannum Cheema, said.
“Furthermore, the respondent (Sonia Gandhi) as the main leader of the opposition is bound by a fundamental duty to the citizens of the country to call out and criticize the laws introduced by the ruling government which harm the rights of the citizens. The riots reportedly fueled hate speech by political leaders during the anti-CAA protests.The affidavits claimed that the field of respondents showed the selective manner in which they were selected and revealed a larger conspiracy behind the exercise and the actions fell on independents, non-conformist sections and opposition party leaders.
Meanwhile, the petitioner has conveniently omitted a number of speeches by members of the ruling party which fall squarely within the ambit of the sections under which this writ petition seeks action against the respondents, revealing the colorful nature of the dispute. exercise, they said. The two leaders also opposed the PIL on the grounds of maintainability, calling it “public interest litigation”.
They submitted that the alleged part of the speech relied upon by the petitioner’s organization “Voice of Lawyers” woefully failed to even prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences, including Section 153A IPC, charged against the two respondents. The section deals with promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race etc. Even according to the narrative of this order, which itself deliberately distorts and manipulates the actual facts of the situation, no charges under Section 153B (imputation, statement prejudicial to national integration) IPC can be made against the respondent.
“Not only has the respondent not named any particular group of persons on the basis of their caste, community, religion, region, race or language, but the provision of Section 153B is very specific and has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of this case, the two leaders argued in similar affidavits. Earlier this year, the court issued notices to several politicians, including Anurag Thakur (BJP), Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (Congress), Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others, for two execution applications in the matter.
One application for implementation was filed by petitioner Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq, who sought an FIR over hate speech allegedly uttered by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma. Another application was filed by petitioner ‘Lawyers Voice’ seeking registration of hate speech FIR against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as well as Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan, AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi, former AIMIM MLA Warris Pathan, Mehmood Pracha, Harsh Mander, Mufti Mohammad Ismail, Swara Bhasker, Umar Khalid, BG Kolse Patil, former judge of Bombay High Court, and others.
The Lawyers Voice, in the application, said that public discourse cannot become a tool to propagate speech that is inimical to public order and if an FIR is not registered, the culprits will be encouraged. Besides seeking action against those who allegedly made hate speech in connection with the introduction of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, some other petitions sought setting up of SITs, FIRs against police officers allegedly involved in the violence and release of information about those arrested and detained. Responding to those prayers, police earlier said investigations into the riots have so far revealed no evidence of political leaders inciting or participating in the violence.
Read Now :India has transformed itself into a self-reliant nation that is fully equipped to deal with all kinds of threats and challenges