Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition searching for motion towards former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari and BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi for his or her statements on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and different icons, saying their remarks prima facie don’t represent an offence below any felony regulation.
The excessive court docket additionally mentioned that the statements mirror the notion and opinion of the speaker about these figures with an intention to steer the viewers, and the intention seems to be to enlighten society for its betterment. The HC’s order was made accessible just lately.
Koshyari courted controversy with remarks on Shivaji Maharaj
Koshyari, whose tenure was dogged by controversies brought on by his utterances about Shivaji Maharaj, social reformers Mahatma Phule and his spouse Savitribai and Marathi folks, stepped down from the submit of the governor final month.
He had confronted flak for calling Shivaji Maharaj an “icon of olden times”, whereas Trivedi had allegedly mentioned that the founding father of the Maratha empire had apologised to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghwase, on March 20 dismissed a petition filed by Panvel resident Rama Katarnaware, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) neighborhood.
Petition filed towards Koshyari’s remarks
The petitioner claimed that the statements made by Koshyari and Trivedi who’re non-SC or Scheduled Tribes (ST) members, at public speeches are disrespectful to those late political figures who have been held in excessive esteem by members of society generally and members of the SC/ST communities specifically.
The petitioner referred to a number of objectionable statements made by Koshyari and Trivedi on Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Phule and Savitribai Phule and ‘Marathi manoos’.
Bombay HC says Koshyari’s assertion ‘not disrespectful’ to any nice particular person
However, the bench in its order, mentioned, “An in-depth consideration of the referred statements would inform us that they’re within the nature of the evaluation of historical past and the teachings to be learnt from historical past.
“They also show the intention of the speaker, which is that at least in the present times, we should learn from history and also realise the consequences of following certain traditions and what may happen perhaps for the worst, if those traditions are followed,” the bench mentioned.
It additional mentioned that these statements primarily mirror the notion and opinion of the speaker about these figures with an intention to steer the viewers, to whom they’ve been expressed, to assume over and act in a means which is sweet for society. The intention behind the statements seems to be the enlightenment of society for its betterment, as perceived by the speaker, the bench mentioned.
“These statements, therefore, cannot be seen, by any stretch of the imagination, to be disrespectful to any great person, held in high esteem by the members of the society in general and by the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in particular,” the judges mentioned.
In view of the above, the statements, which have been made, don’t prima-facie represent any offence punishable below the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or some other felony regulation, they mentioned.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are “highly powerful and influential authorities” and it is just a constitutional court docket like this that may challenge acceptable instructions for the registration of the offences and monitor the progress of the investigation.
“In so far as the powers of this court are concerned, there can be no second opinion. This court in the exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can certainly issue directions for upholding the cause of justice. But, the question is as to whether or not such a power can be invoked by the petitioner here, and this question we answer as in the negative,” the bench mentioned.
The purpose being that, we don’t see a prima-facie structure of any of the alleged offences based mostly on the alleged objectionable statements, it added.
