Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a direction to censor all future social media posts by Kangana Ranaut.
A petition was filed in the Supreme court seeking censorship on future posts made by Kangana Ranaut, to maintain law and order in the country.
- News18.com
- Last Updated:January 21, 2022, 20:11 IST
- FOLLOW US ON:
A PIL seeking censorship of Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut’s social media posts and the clubbing of FIRs against her for her statements against the Sikh community has been turned down by Supreme Court. The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi made it clear that the Court will not entertain third party petitions in such a case. The court is, however, allowing Mumbai police to carry on their probe in the matter.
A petition was filed in the Supreme court seeking censorship on future posts made by the actress, to maintain law and order in the country. The plea filed by advocate Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal also sought direction to transfer all the FIRs filed across India for her remarks on farmers’ protest, to the Khar police station in Mumbai. He also sought for a charge sheet to be filed in a period of six months along with an expeditious trial within a period of two years.
The plea prayed for an order to transfer all pending first information reports (FIRs) registered against Ranaut across India to the Khar Police Station in Mumbai. It further prayed that chargesheets in those cases be submitted in six months and that trial be completed in two years.
The petitioner claimed that he was tremendously hurt by an Instagram post of Ranaut which stated that “Sikh Farmers were Khalistani Terrorists”. The plea said that the Instagram post justified the anti-sikh genocide of 1984.
“(It) upholds the genocide of 1984, means that Sikhs should be treated as a lower race like unwanted mosquitoes and they need a Guru like Mrs. Indira Gandhi when the Eternal Guru of the Sikhs is Guru Granth Sahibjee,” the petition said.
These kind of statements could develop racial discrimination and hate based on difference in faith and could even lead to riots, the petitioner contended.
