Court dismisses revision plea seeking case registration against SP, AIMIM chiefs
In May 2022, the SP chief, while speaking to the media in Ayodhya after the Shivling-like structure was found in the Gyanvapi mosque compound, said, “In our Hinduism, place a stone anywhere under a peepal tree, install a red flag there, and it becomes a temple.”
VARANASI: The court of additional district judge (Ninth), Vinod Kumar, on Tuesday dismissed a revision plea seeking the registration of a case against Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, and others for allegedly spreading hatred towards Hindus and hurting their sentiments with their respective statements regarding the structure found in the Wazukhana of the Gyanvapi Mosque during a court-mandated survey in May 2022. The Hindu side claimed the structure to be a ‘Shivling,’ while Muslims claimed it to be a fountain.
Senior advocate Harishankar Pandey had filed the plea in May 2022 in the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate-V, seeking an order to register a case against Akhilesh Yadav and Owaisi, along with Mufti-e-Banaras Maulana Abdul Batin Nomani, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee president Maulana Abdul Waqi, joint secretary SM Yasin, and others.
In May 2022, the SP chief, while speaking to the media in Ayodhya after the Shivling-like structure was found in the Gyanvapi mosque compound, said, “In our Hinduism, place a stone anywhere under a peepal tree, install a red flag there, and it becomes a temple.”
Asaduddin Owaisi had stated that the structure was not a Shivling but a fountain, claimed the plaintiff.
Addressing a press conference at the court premises on Wednesday, Anuj Yadav, counsel for SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, said that revision petitioner Harishankar Pandey had filed an application in the court of ACJM V (MP-MLA) Ujjwal Upadhyay, considering the statements made by Akhilesh and Owaisi in May 2022 as hate speech.
Yadav said that the plaintiff alleged that these leaders committed a criminal act by spreading hatred towards the Hindu community through indecent and humiliating statements, which hurt the sentiments of Hindus. After hearing arguments from both parties, the ACJM court dismissed the plea on February 14, 2023, considering it not maintainable.
{{/usCountry}}Yadav said that the plaintiff alleged that these leaders committed a criminal act by spreading hatred towards the Hindu community through indecent and humiliating statements, which hurt the sentiments of Hindus. After hearing arguments from both parties, the ACJM court dismissed the plea on February 14, 2023, considering it not maintainable.
{{/usCountry}}Following the dismissal of his plea, Pandey filed a revision petition in the court of additional district judge (Ninth), Vinod Kumar, seeking an order to register a case against Akhilesh, Owaisi, Nomani, Waqi, Yasin, and others.
{{/usCountry}}Following the dismissal of his plea, Pandey filed a revision petition in the court of additional district judge (Ninth), Vinod Kumar, seeking an order to register a case against Akhilesh, Owaisi, Nomani, Waqi, Yasin, and others.
{{/usCountry}}Yadav said that he submitted arguments against the plea during the hearing, arguing that SP chief Akhilesh Yadav’s statement did not constitute hate speech. Similarly, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi’s lawyer, Ehtesham Abdi, claimed the same regarding Owaisi’s statement.
{{/usCountry}}Yadav said that he submitted arguments against the plea during the hearing, arguing that SP chief Akhilesh Yadav’s statement did not constitute hate speech. Similarly, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi’s lawyer, Ehtesham Abdi, claimed the same regarding Owaisi’s statement.
{{/usCountry}}After hearing arguments from both sides and observing the available evidence, the court found the allegations baseless and dismissed the revision petition, Yadav added.
In its order, the court said that the Gyanvapi Mosque case is still pending in the civil court, where it will be determined whether the disputed site is a ‘Swayambhu Jyotirlinga’ or a Wazukhana.
The order passed by the additional chief judicial magistrate (I) was within his jurisdiction and involved judicial reasoning. This court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the order. Accordingly, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. “The criminal revision petition is dismissed,” the court ordered.
