The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition that
sought action against former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari and BJP
MP Sudhanshu Trivedi for their statements on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and
other icons, saying the remarks do not prima facie constitute an offence under
any criminal act.
The court also said that the statements reflect the
perception and opinion of the speaker about those figures with an aim to
persuade the audience, and the intention appears to be of enlightenment of the
society for its betterment.
Koshyari, whose tenure was dogged by controversies
caused by his utterances about Shivaji Maharaj, social reformers Mahatma Phule
and his wife Savitribai and Marathi people, stepped down as the state governor
last month.
Koshyari had faced flak for calling Shivaji Maharaj
an "icon of olden times", while Trivedi had allegedly said that the
founder of the Maratha empire had apologised to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghwase, on March
20 dismissed a petition filed by Panvel resident Rama Katarnaware, who belongs
to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community.
The petitioner claimed that the statements made by
Koshyari and Trivedi who are non-SC or Scheduled Tribes (ST) members, at public
speeches are disrespectful to these late political figures who were held in
high esteem by members of society in general and members of the SC/ST
communities in particular.
The
petitioner referred to several objectionable statements made by Koshyari and
Trivedi on Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Phule and Savitribai Phule and 'Marathi
manoos'.
However,
the bench in its order, said, "An in-depth consideration of the referred
statements would tell us that they are in the nature of the analysis of history
and the lessons to be learnt from history. They also show the intention of the
speaker, which is that at least in the present times, we should learn from
history and also realise the consequences of following certain traditions and
what may happen perhaps for the worst, if those traditions are followed."
It
further said that these statements primarily reflect the perception and opinion
of the speaker about those figures with an intention to persuade the audience,
to whom they have been expressed, to think over and act in a way which is good
for the society. The intention behind the statements appears to be of
enlightenment of the society for its betterment, as perceived by the speaker,
it said.
"These
statements, therefore, cannot be seen, by any stretch of imagination, to be
disrespectful to any great person, held in high esteem by the members of the
society in general and by the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes in particular," said.
In
view of above, the statements, which were made, do not prima-facie constitute
any offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act or any other criminal law, it added.
The
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are "highly
powerful and influential authorities" and it is only a constitutional
court like this that can issue appropriate directions for registration of the
offences and monitor the progress of investigation.
"In
so far as the powers of this court are concerned, there can be no second
opinion. This court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, can certainly issue the directions for upholding the
cause of justice. But, the question is as to whether or not such a power be
invoked by the petitioner here? and this question we answer as in the
negative," the bench said.
The
reason being that, we do not see prima-facie constitution of any of the alleged
offences on the basis of the alleged objectionable statements, it added.