The controversy started when the petitioner, one Islamuddin Ansari confronted Tyagi, who was then a Superintendent of Police, over the alleged circulation of an audio clip. In it, Tyagi was allegedly heard utilizing derogatory language in opposition to Muslims.
Earlier than lodging a proper grievance, Ansari had requested the officer to substantiate whether or not the voice within the clip was certainly his however the SP by no means responded. As a substitute, Ansari was booked for circulating materials containing hate speech.
He moved appeals earlier than the trial courtroom and the Excessive Courtroom however failed. He then approached the Supreme Courtroom.
After the Supreme Courtroom issued discover on Ansari’s plea, the State on the following date of listening to stated that it was withdrawing its grievance in opposition to Ansari.
This prompted the Supreme Courtroom to notice that the grievance in opposition to Ansari was nothing however a counter blast for confronting SP Tyagi and asking whether or not the voice within the audio was his.
“Having regard to the aforesaid, we discover it to be completely an abuse of their authority and in addition the method of the Courtroom by the Police in initiating the continuing…we’re extra involved with the background during which such a scenario arose. The petitioner having requested the Superintendent of Police and rightly so, earlier than making a proper grievance, as as to whether, the voice presupposed to be his, disclosing that he had used some very objectionable language was, by no means replied to,” the Courtroom stated.
Leave a Reply