The Solicitor General claimed inflammatory speeches had been made on “both sides” during a Supreme Court hearing on registration of FIRs against BJP leaders for their purported hate speeches which victims said sparked riots in northeast Delhi last week.
The SC bench, comprising CJI SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant, refused to hear Harsh Mander’s petition after the Centre brought to its notice alleged hate speeches made by Mander.
SG Tushar Mehta read out transcripts of his reported speech at Jamia where he said there was no trust left in the courts and that ultimate justice had to be on the streets.
The top court said the matters pertaining to the riots will be listed before the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on March 6, Friday, while the SC will hear the matter concerning the alleged speech by Mander on the same day, Bar&Bench reported.
The bench was hearing a plea seeking lodging of FIRs against BJP leaders ― Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, Kapil Mishra and Abhay Verma ― for hate speeches. At least 46 people have died and more than 200 were injured during the riots that broke out on February 23.
The petition filed by 10 victims of the violence had been mentioned for urgent listing before a bench headed by CJI Bobde.
On the HC’s decision to adjourn the hearing for four weeks, CJI Bobde said, “Adjournment for such long time is unnecessary... We don’t want to assume jurisdiction when HC is seized of the matter but such matters should not be delayed for so long,” Bar&Bench quoted.
During the SC hearing on Monday, the CJI had said that the Supreme Court also wishes for peace but there are “limitations” and it cannot give “preventive reliefs”.
“We are not saying that people should die. That kind of pressure we are not equipped to handle. We cannot stop things from happening. We cannot give preventive reliefs. We feel a kind of pressure on us,” the CJI said when senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, sought urgent listing of the plea.
The bench said the court can deal with a situation only after it takes place and it is not equipped to prevent it.
“The kind of pressure on us, you should know, we cannot handle that,” the bench said, adding, “We also read newspapers and the comments which are made. It is like as if the court is responsible”.
“We would wish peace but you know that there are limitations,” the CJI told Gonsalves, who said the court can prevent any further deterioration of the situation.