BENGALURU: A private complaint has been filed against Prime Minister Narendra Modi by Ziaurrahaman Nomani, an engineer and human rights activist from Bengaluru, alleging that the PM made a hate speech against the Muslim community in Rajasthan. The complaint was filed with the registry of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court on May 23 and is set for a hearing on May 28.
Nomani claims that PM Modi made derogatory remarks about Muslims during a speech in Banswara, Rajasthan, on April 21. According to Nomani, Modi’s speech portrayed Muslims as usurpers who have seized the nation’s wealth and suggested that if the Congress party were to come to power, it would take the earnings of other communities and give them to Muslims.
The complaint cites sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 503, 504, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with promoting enmity between different groups, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and other related offenses. The 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, which handles cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs triable by a magistrate, will decide whether there is a prima facie case to proceed.
Nomani initially approached the Amruthahalli police in Bengaluru to file an FIR against PM Modi. However, the police informed him that such a matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Subsequently, Nomani took his complaint to the ECI, requesting that they stop Modi from making similar speeches.
Following this, Nomani filed a private complaint with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, appealing for the court to take cognizance of the offense and refer it for investigation. The court’s decision on May 28 will determine the next steps in this legal process.
The allegations against PM Modi have sparked discussions about the nature of political speeches and the boundaries of acceptable discourse, particularly during election periods. The case underscores the ongoing tensions and sensitivities surrounding communal issues in India.
As the hearing date approaches, all eyes will be on the court’s decision, which could have significant implications for political accountability and the enforcement of laws against hate speech. This case also highlights the avenues available to citizens seeking redress against high-profile individuals through the judicial system.
