New Delhi, Apr 2 Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has told a Delhi court that a revision petition assailing the dismissal of a plea seeking an FIR against him is an abuse of law, as mere criticism of a political ideology has vaguely been categorised as "hate speech" and "defamation".
The leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha filed his response on Wednesday before Special Judge Jitendra Singh, seeking the dismissal of the revision plea.
The court was hearing the revision plea filed by a lawyer who has claimed that Kharge made a scathing remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an election rally in Karnataka on April 27, 2023, and that his address constituted a "hate speech and defamation directed against a clearly-identifiable group".
A magisterial court in December last year rejected the lawyer's complaint seeking its directions for the registration of an FIR against the Congress chief.
Underlining that there was no basis for the complaint, Kharge's response said, "The proceedings pursued by the revisionist are nothing but an abuse of the procedure established under law, as mere criticism of the ideology of political proponents has been vaguely categorised as hate speech and defamation."
It said a bare perusal of the complaint shows that the revisionist has selected only one line from the speech, which by itself or when taken as a whole was not directed towards any religious community, class, caste, race and gender.
"Instead, the speech at best amounts to a political criticism of his opposing proponents. It cannot be said that a mere criticism of political parties, which was not directed towards any individual/community, amounts to an offence," the reply said.
It said the complaint did not allege any intent to incite violence, cause disorder or promote enmity or hatred between different classes of people, nor that any two groups or communities were identified regarding the statement attributed to Kharge.
"The revisionist has not alleged that the statements of Respondent 2 (Kharge) carried any imputation/assertion which was prejudicial to any class of persons. There is no allegation supported by any evidence to showcase that the alleged statement jeopardised the sovereignty, unity, integrity or security of India," the reply said.
It said the magistrate, in its order, had rightly held that Kharge's speech was "a political criticism" under the ambit of the Constitution's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
"The revisionist has misconstrued the speech of Respondent 2 and tried to give it a criminal colour. Any citizen has a right to make speeches, which is covered under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India," the reply said.
"Admittedly, the entire basis of alleging hate speech is based on the personal opinion and disagreement of the revisionist, which is not a ground to initiate any criminal proceeding against Respondent 2," it added.
The reply said the magistrate had dismissed the plea seeking police investigation as a probe was not needed on "the frivolous and baseless allegation of the revisionist".
Seeking the dismissal of the revision plea, the response said Kharge's speech made no reference to any two classes of people with the malicious intention of inciting any violence or enmity, nor was any reference made to any religion.
The reply also said the present special court trying cases involving MPs and MLAs does not have the revisional jurisdiction to deal with the case.
