New Delhi: The Centre has sought to backtrack in the Supreme Court some views it had conveyed in a case involving BJP leader Subramanian Swamy saying it was “merely the statement of fact and is not any expression, opinion or decision” of the official who had filed the affidavit.
“The counter affidavit filed by the answering respondent is in no way the conception of the answering respondent relating to the book in question written by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge before the Courts below.
“In that view of the matter, the submissions made in the counter affidavit particularly the contents of para 11 apart from supporting the validity of the provisions of law challenged by the petitioner, what is stated is merely the statement of fact and is not any expression/opinion or decision of the answering respondent,” a Union Home Ministry official said in the additional affidavit filed today.
The official, in his earlier affidavit on Oct 28, had said that the petitioner, Swamy, had written a book named Terrorism in India wherein he made hate speech against the community of India.
“The book–its theme, its language, its innuendos, the similes it employs and the moral of its story, if any–in order to ascertain whether the offending passages read in the context of the book as a whole fall within the mischief of Section 153A. The book to be considered in all its aspects as it contains matter which “promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India.” Therefore, the petition has violated sections of IPC,” the earlier affidavit had said.
The apex court was hearing Swamy’s plea against the order of an Assam trial court issuing an NBW against him for failing to appear before it on March 19 in a case of alleged hate speech.
The Centre has sought in the Supreme Court the dismissal of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s plea challenging the constitutional validity of penal provisions on speeches and writings that could cause enmity and hatred among communities.
Swamy, who is facing a court case in Karimganj in Assam for allegedly delivering an inflammatory address at Kaziranga University, sought relief from the apex court in the case.
He also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the Indian Penal Code.