On June 14, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking to prevent a ‘Mahapanchayat’ scheduled to be held tomorrow in Uttarakhand’s Uttarkashi district. The Mahapanchayat would discuss the ‘increasing cases of love jihad and land jihad’ in view of the recent abduction of a minor Hindu girl by Uved Khan and Jitendra Saini in Uttarkashi. The court asked the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief while expressing disinclination to hear the matter.
The petitioner’s counsel Advocate Shahrukh Alam submitted that the Mahapanchayat is scheduled for June 15, claiming that Hindu groups have given an ultimatum has been given to local Muslims to leave the place before the scheduled event. The counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court earlier issued a mandamus to the Uttarakhand Government to ensure no hate speeches were made.
The counsel said, “There is a continuing mandamus by this court against hate speech and against the state of Uttarakhand too. They have called for a mahapanchayat saying a particular community has to leave by the 15th of June…There is an ultimatum given to a particular community to leave the place before the mahapanchayat.”
However, the court asked the petitioner why can’t the petitioner approach the High Court. The court said, “Law and order is for the administration to handle. You move the High Court. Why do you come here?” The court asked, “Why do you express distrust in approaching HC? If there is a mandamus by this Court, High Court will pass orders. You should have some trust in the High Court. Why can’t you trust the administration?”
The court further said, “Why do you distrust the administration generally? How do you say they won’t act and prohibit the illegal part of it? Isn’t it unfair to distrust them completely? Approach the district administration and the high court.”
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner moved the court in view of the court’s earlier direction to the Uttarakhand Government in a hate speech case; however, the court rejected the contention and said that the High Court could also pass appropriate orders.
The petitioner’s counsel sought permission from the court to withdraw the petition, noting the court’s disinclination to hear the matter. The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and granted it the liberty to avail alternate remedies.
Notably, as the proceedings drew to a close, the petitioner’s counsel requested the court to add in the order that if any untoward incidents took place during the Mahapanchayat, then the administration would be responsible. However, the court declined, “No, you move the high court…whatever may be your relief, we don’t know.”
On June 13, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand Jha and poet Ashok Vajpeyi filed a letter petition before the Supreme Court seeking to prevent the Mahapanchayat which is scheduled to take place on June 15, calling it an attempt to incite communal riots. The letter claimed that the events unfolding in Uttarkashi exemplify the State government’s failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India on April 19, 2018, which instruct the State government to take preventive measures.
Furthermore, the human rights NGO People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) had also written to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court, seeking immediate action. The PUCL claims that if the scheduled Mahapanchayat takes place and the subsequent highway blockade occurs, the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police should be held accountable for neglecting their constitutional duty.
Uttarkashi Love Jihad Case
Recently, a Muslim man, identified as Uved Khan, with accomplice Jitendra Saini tried abducting a minor Hindu girl. The attempt to abduct the girl was foiled by locals, and the accused handed over to the police, but tension persists in Uttarkashi town and adjoining areas of Uttarakhand.
Since the main accused in the case was Uved Khan, who allegedly lured the minor Hindu girl and planned to elope, the Hindu activists called it a case of ‘Love Jihad’. The accused have been booked under the sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offense (POCSO) Act. “The two accused were identified and have been arrested. After the girl’s medical examination, sections of POCSO have also been added to the case. Further investigations in the case are underway,” said SP Uttarkashi Arpan Yaduvanshi. “Protests will be granted permission only until they are peaceful. Any person who tries to take law in his hand will not be spared. Please do not believe in rumours,” he appealed.
Following the abduction attempt, there was a rage among the local people of the town and they had staged widespread protest across the city. As many as 40 shops in the hill town of Purola in Uttarkashi, 145 km from Dehradun, remained closed following the crime. The people enraged by the incident also demanded the shutdown of shops owned by Islamists and outsiders in the main market. They also demanded verification of non-local businessmen who run their businesses in rented premises in Purola. They also took out procession beating drums and shouting slogans against “love jihad band karo” in all these towns.
As per the reports, one of the accused owned a cycle repairing shop and the other one was engaged in making handmade blankets in the main market area. The two trapped a Hindu girl studying in class 9 and abducted her to the Vikasnagar region of the state. Uved Khan also promised her marriage.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) President from Purola, Virendra Singh Rawat said, “Saini happened to introduce Uved to the girl. He also influenced the girl in favor of Uved and helped the boy abduct the girl. The girl was actually trapped in a love affair by the Muslim accused who later also promised her of marriage. He then abducted her with the help of the other accused.”
He added, “Outsiders most of whom are from the minority communities migrate to Purola and set up small businesses like puncture, vehicle repairs, etc and then execute their agenda. They eye on Hindu girls and try to convert them to other religions. Several cases like these have happened in the past. This case is also one of those. Its simple love jihad,” These activists claimed that the accused Uved Khan had tried to conceal his identity in order to trap the minor.
Amid the ongoing protests in Uttarakhand’s Uttarkashi district over a minor’s abduction attempt, unidentified people on June 5 put up posters on the shutters of several shops in Purola, asking owners to vacate their shops by June 15, or face consequences.
Yamuna Valley Hindu Jagriti Sangathan president Keshav Giri Maharaj also accused traders from outside of assuming fake identities and trapping innocent daughters in the hills. “The incidents of abduction are increasing. The incident in Purola is a recent example of this. A similar incident had also happened in the Naugaon market,” he told PTI. In the meantime, representatives of the local traders’ organisation, who also participated in the protest met with Devanand Sharma, the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) of Purola. They demanded thorough verification of all the people who are not local and are staying and working in Purola.
V Murugesan, additional director general of police (law & order) denied reports claiming that members of the minority communities have left the city. “Nobody has left the town as it is not that easy to just leave businesses and homes behind in one night. The situation is completely under control. The accused, who were arrested, were produced before the local court which later sent them to jail,” he said.
