It was 1978. Kuldip Nayar, then an editor at the Indian Express, had written an editorial on the army regime in Pakistan after a trip to the neighbouring country. A boy based in Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh shot him a critical letter.

“Nayar got back explaining why he thought the army rule under General Zia-ul-Haq then was problematic as against a democratic setup,” said former BBC journalist Qurban Ali while recalling his letter. That was the turning point in his life which drew Ali towards the profession of journalism. And it is this habit of asking questions which compelled Ali to move the Supreme Court seeking directions in matters related to hate speech. 

A public interest litigation filed in January last year by him and former Patna High Court judge Justice Anjana Prakash is among a dozen petitions on hate speech clubbed together by the top court, which is likely to hear the matter again on Thursday.

Ali is not the only journalist among the petitioners. Maktoob journalist Shaheen Abdulla, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had also filed a plea over hate speech allegedly targeting the Muslim community. However, it is only Ali who has allegedly received threats via video from Yati Narsinghanand – one of the accused in the Dharm Sansad hate speech case which triggered the slew of petitions.

Ali’s PIL specifically demands a new set of guidelines on police role in such matters. 

The trigger

In December 2021, the Dharm Sansad, a religious congregation, courted controversy after participants called for violence against Muslims, as per videos widely circulated on social media. Dasna priest and the event’s organiser Yati Narsinghanand was subsequently arrested. 

“Calls were made for genocide and the participants here claimed that several ministers touch their feet. So, in a way, it was an open challenge to the Constitution,” Ali told Newslaundry on being asked what led him to knock the doors of the apex court.

Raising concerns on the alleged lack of action by the government, Ali said, “Attempts were repeatedly made to label our allegations as false. This is nothing but an attempt to wage a civil war in the country. Though we did manage to halt a similar event from taking place in the state of Himachal Pradesh.” 

However, the legal fight also brought with it a fresh set of challenges; among them, an alleged threat. But that’s not all. Even the respective state governments have taken potshots at the petitioners while they were asked to file responses in the form of affidavits. Uttarakhand’s DGP has even questioned the locus standi of the petitioners, claming that this amounts to “abuse of legal process”. 

Asked whether the petition is directed at only BJP-governed states, Ali said, “This is nothing but a figment of imagination. We, in fact, are saying that irrespective of the party whose government is in power, action should be taken against those trying to vitiate the atmosphere.” 

The PIL seeks new guidelines. However, in July 2018, the Supreme Court had come up with a set of suggestions – known as the ‘Tehseen Poonawalla Guidelines’ – that had talked about the need for district-level nodal officers to avert incidents of mob violence.

So do cases of hate speech call for a separate set of guidelines? 

“We are not asking for a new law, all we are saying is that the law enforcement agencies should try and preempt such gatherings. There shouldn’t be any excuse why action can’t be taken when such a crime like hate speech is happening in broad daylight,” Ali said.