Hate attacks and incidents of regional chauvinism can be tackled if there is a political will, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
NEW DELHI: Hate attacks and incidents of regional chauvinism can be tackled if there is a political will, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday while agreeing to hear on Monday a PIL linked to the alleged violence perpetrated by Raj Thackeray's MNS party in Maharashtra.
More than a court matter it is a political issue which needs political will to tackle it, the court observed when the petitioner pointed to Mumbai violence and its repercussions in Bihar and Delhi.
"Can it be done through an order of this court. It is a political question not a court issue. If there is a political will it can be tackled," a bench of Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi observed.
The bench was initially not inclined to entertain the petition filed by a businessman Salek Chand Jain, and said that it was for the Union Government to invoke Article 355 for giving appropriate direction to the States concerned.
However, later it observed that the "issue was serious" and agreed to hear the matter; but directed the counsel Sugriv Dubey to suitably amend the petition so that it can be taken up for hearing.
Dubey who mentioned the matter before the bench complained that the attacks on north Indian by the MNS has led to a chain reaction elsewhere in the country and it threatened to destroy the unity and integrity of the country.
According to the petitioner following the MNS attacks, the Jharkhand Chief Minister had announced that he would not permit the rich mineral resources of the state to be transported to any part of the country.
He claimed the threat, if carried out, would seriously affect the country's development as 60 per cent of the mineral resources originated from Jharkhand.
Pointing towards the attack on Maharashtra Sadan in the Capital by protesters on Monday, the petitioner justified the argument that if stern action was not taken against those espousing regional chauvinism it would seriously endanger upon the country's unity and development.
"But can an order of this court have the desired effect. You educate the people," the bench told the counsel to which the latter replied that most of the victims are not well educated people.
The apex court at one stage also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner but his counsel said the developments have a bearing on him as being a businessman he would not be able to trade with other states if regional sentiments were whipped up every where.
The bench made the counsel to read Article 355 of the Constitution which mandated that it was the duty of the Union Government to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbances.
"It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution," says Article 355.
After reading the provision, the counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition.
"It is serious matter (violence) dealt in a non- serious manner," the bench observed while referring to the petition which did not contain details of the various incidents.
The bench asked the counsel to amend the petition and accordingly posted it for further hearing to Monday.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}