A Delhi-based lawyer has sent a legal notice to Mallikarjun Kharge, President of Indian National Congress (INC), for allegedly indulging in hate speech and defaming the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The notice sent by Advocate Ravinder Kumar Gupta alleged that on April 27 this year, while addressing an election rally at Naregal in Gadag district of Karnataka, Kharge had passed a scathing remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. the Congress president allegedly said that Mr Modi was like a poisonous snake. “If you try to test whether it is poisonous or not, you will die,” Kharge had allegedly said.
The notice said the statement received severe backlash from various political leaders affiliated to Bharatiya Janata Party.
However, addressing another rally at Ron of Gadag district in Karnataka, Kharge clarified that his words were not intended at Mr Modi, but at the BJP and RSS.
As per the notice, while apologising for his statement against the Prime MInister, Kharge said in Gadag that his remarks were not against the Prime Minister, but against the BJP and RSS, as their ideologies were equivalent to a poisonous and venomous snake.
He mentioned the meaning of hate speech, as given by the Supreme Court in the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan V Union of India (2014) case. The Apex Court had termed hate speech as an ‘effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group’. It further said that any expression, which exposed a group to hatred, came under hate speech. Such speech sought to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within the society, it added.
The top court of the country said that hate speech rose beyond causing distress to
Individual group members. It could have a societal impact. Hate speech laid the groundwork for later, broad attacks on the vulnerable that could range from discrimination to ostracism, segregation, deportation and violence. In the most extreme cases, it could lead to genocide. Hate speech also impacted a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in Indian democracy, added the Apex Court.