Former Judge uses prejudicial language to dehumanise Hindus, denies persecution, subverts truth of movement to reclaim places of worship
Delhi, Delhi, India 
5 December, 2024
Case Summary
On December 6, 2024, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman openly criticised the 2019 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, calling it a "mockery of justice" and claiming it violated the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Speaking at the inaugural lecture of the Ahmadi Foundation, Nariman said that the verdict disregarded the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which freezes the status of religious sites as of August 15, 1947, to promote communal harmony. He argued that the decision set a precedent encouraging litigation over other religious sites, which could escalate communal tensions. Nariman referred to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s 1984 karseva movement as "dictatorial" and "tyrannical," highlighting his involvement in cases related to the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992, where he claimed little progress had been made in holding individuals accountable. He also criticised the failure to rebuild a mosque on the disputed site post-demolition, describing it as a “travesty of justice,” and expressed disapproval of recent petitions challenging the legality of mosques and dargahs built on Hindu temple ruins. While Nariman accused the Hindu community of acting outside the law, historical records indicate that the Hindu side pursued legal avenues from the British era to the Supreme Court, culminating in the 2019 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict. Critics of Nariman’s remarks pointed out that his interpretation of secularism appeared one-sided, suggesting that justice would have been served only if the Hindu claim was disregarded.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the primary category "Hate Speech against Hindus' under three sub-categories. The first sub-category is 'Anti Hindu slurs, mocking faith'. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. The second sub-category is 'Anti Hindu subversion or prejudice'. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The third sub-category is 'denial or mocking of genocide/large scale persecution'. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. Former Justice Nariman Rohington’s statements have been classified as hate speech against Hindus and anti-Hindu subversion on several counts. Given the seriousness of the issue, since the hate speech has been made by a Judge who used to occupy the highest judicial seat, his comments deserve a detailed look. Justice Nariman said, “We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place. Now not only concerning mosques but also dargahs. All this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged in both our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act.” He further branded the movement to reclaim Ram Janmabhoomi as ‘dictatorial’ and ‘tyrannical’. Nariman also accused the Hindu community of consistently acting against the law in the Ram Temple case and described the failure to construct a mosque as a ‘travesty of justice’. Justice Nariman here indulges in subversion by first claiming that Hindus were dictatorial and tyrannical for wanting to reclaim places of worship by filing suits in the court of law and following the due process. In the same breath, he also says that in the Ram Mandir issue, Hindus took matters into their own hands by demolishing the mosque. Essentially, regardless of the course of action taken, he has branded Hindus tyrannical for attempting to reclaim their places of worship. Further, Nariman claims that Hindus have always indulged in illegal action as far as the Ram Mandir is concerned. This is a clear subversion of the truth driven by religious prejudice since the first legal suit was filed by the Hindus to reclaim the Ram Mandir in the year 1885 - Mahant Raghubir Das had filed a suit seeking permission to build a canopy on Ram chabootra but his plea was rejected a year after by the Faizabad district court. Thereafter, it was in 1950 that the first title suit was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad asking for the right to worship the idols installed at 'Asthan Janmabhoomi'. The court restrained the removal of idols and allowed the worship to continue. It is, therefore, evident that Hindus have been submitting themselves to due legal process for well over a century to reclaim Ram Temple at Ayodhya. Further, as far as the mass action of bringing the structure was concerned – it is far more a failing of the judicial process and judges like Mr Nariman himself that Hindus had to resort to that action to reclaim their place of worship. If Hindus were tyrannical and dictatorial, it would not have taken the judiciary and 500 years for the Ram temple to be reclaimed. Further, Hindus, to date, would not be using the due process of the law to reclaim their other temples which were desecrated by Islamic invaders, destroyed and mosques built on top of them. Essentially, owing to his inherent religious prejudice, any action taken by the Hindu side to rightfully reclaim their place of worship has been used to dehumanize and brand Hindus as the aggressors. There was essentially no difference in Hindus razing the Babri structure and indigenous people from other countries tearing down symbols that glorify their people’s oppression and tyranny – for example – the pulling down of confederate statues. The language used by Justice Nariman dehumanizes Hindus, legitimizing violence against them on the basis of their religious identity. Further, the language used by Justice Nariman also denies the historical persecution faced by Hindus at the hands of Islamic invaders, terming the victims as barbarians and tyrants. It is pertinent to note here that Mr Nariman Rohinton is a Parsi priest himself who had, along with his father, advocated for the shifting of a metro tunnel because it passed over a Parsi Fire Temple. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that Mr Nariman respects religious rights when it comes to his own faith, but brands Hindus using prejudicial and oppressive language if they advocate for their own rights. Such legitimization of prejudice against the Hindus from a former Supreme Court judge endangers Hindus, denies them their rights – religious and judicial – denies their historical persecution and dehumanizes Hindus, simply owing to their professed faith and their right to reclaim their sacred spaces. For that reason, this speech by Justice Nariman Rohinton is being categorized as hate speech against Hindus.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
