The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the district administrations of Maharashtra’s Yavatmal and Chhattisgarh’s Raipur to ensure that no “hate speeches” are made during the proposed rallies by the Hindu Jagaran Samithi and Telangana BJP MLA T. Raja Singh over the next one week in their respective jurisdictions.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, however, refused to stay the rallies, saying the parties the applicant has voiced apprehensions about are not before the court.

“It is to be noted that persons against whom allegations have been made have not been impleaded as party to the present writ petition(s)/application. Nevertheless, we would require the authorities to be conscious that no incitement to violence and hate speech are permissible.

“The District Magistrate (DM) and the Superintendent of Police (SP), Yavatmal, Maharashtra, and Raipur, Chhattisgarh, will take notice of the allegations made in the present application, a copy of which will be served on each of them. The concerned DMs and SPs will take necessary steps, as may be required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, police/administration will install CCTV cameras having a recording facility, so as to ensure identification of the perpetrators in the event of any violence/hate speech,” the bench said.

The bench passed the order while disposing of an application filed by social activist Shaheen Abdullah seeking a restrain on the rallies of the Hindu Jagaran Samithi to be addressed by Raja Singh, who was last year arrested by the Hyderabad police for alleged inflammatory speeches.

The Hindu Jagaran Samithi, according to the petitioner, had proposed the rallies on January 18 at Yavatmal and at Raipur from January 19-25.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the rallies should not be permitted. However, the bench noted that it had earlier passed a number of orders asking the authorities across the country to take action against inflammatory speeches and it was for the administration concerned to take action.

In the present case, the bench noted that the petitioner had not impleaded the organisation or the MLA as respondents and, hence, no adverse order can be passed. “It cannot be a pre-emptory order. This order that you are seeking from us if we pass will affect somebody. Your prayer is do not grant any permission. This goes against the fundamental principles of natural justice,” Justice Datta observed.

Sibal countered the argument saying: “What about the fundamental rights of the people who will be affected and the fundamentals of the Constitution?”

However, the bench was not impressed and said no order directing the cancellation of the rallies could be passed without the other side being heard. It however, directed the authorities concerned to take all necessary steps to prevent any form of inflammatory speeches being delivered at the rallies.