The court, in its order, noted, “…any such pre-supposition is misconceived in as much as it is for the Election Commission of India to take an independent view in this regard.” The high court, thus, admonished the petitioners for assuming that the Prime Minister’s words were illegal and thus a breach of the law.
But in saying so it gave no explanation regarding how it concluded that it was not a case of hate speech prima facie. The court’s order was bereft of any reasoning in how it sees the Prime Minister as not violating the law.
Furthermore, the court also failed to delve into the contents of the speech that was presented before it. What becomes pertinent here is to ask what ‘pre-supposition’ really meant in its order in particular and in a court proceeding in general. It is well noted that in court, the aggrieved party presupposes a breach of law and comes to court to test their case.
The role of the constitutional court, which has been bestowed with extraordinary jurisdiction, is to prima facie examine the merits of such a case. The court, which should have examined the impugned speech, did not make any such attempts. One also fails to understand how calling the Muslim community “infiltrators” required some thorough analysis by the Election Commission, which no ordinary citizen could presuppose in the beginning.
29/05/2024