The Constitution of India enshrines the Right to Religion for every citizen under articles 25-28. Yet, the religious harmony fundamental to #secularism in India is disrupted by religious clashes between the Hindu and Muslim communities, the largest religious communities in the country.
On the 16th of April, the Jahangirpuri area in Delhi faced the wrath of this enduring tension. Some #Hindus took out a procession on the occasion of #HanumanJayanti, a religious festival of the Hindus, through the Muslim site of Jahangirpuri. The procession was accused of holding saffron flags and calling out #Islamophobic slogans, which flared up the communal tension between the two communities, leading to riots, stone-pelting, and various arrests. Allegedly, the police on the following day arrested around 22 people belonging to Muslim Community by holding them responsible and charging them for spreading communal disharmony.
On the 20th of April, a demolition drive was carried out in #Jahangirpuri. Though the government claimed the demolition drive was unrelated to the communal violence, critics have questioned the timing of the decision made by the government. However, soon after reporting the incident, the Supreme Court halted the demolition. Nevertheless, the Authorities appallingly continued destruction despite the order. They demolished the outer structure of the Mosque, which again spurred outrage. Although the government has not given any official statement, they have faced many questions regarding its stand on religious polarization and anti-Muslim actions of the government after the incident.
On the 26th of April, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a lawyer Vishal Tiwari. He sought a judicial inquiry into the instance of the Jahangirpuri communal violence. The PIL was dismissed by stating that the Court cannot grant the relief sought by the Petitioner.
With the increase in cases of communal violence seen in India, judicial apathy might not help relieve the situation. Without the delivery of speedy justice, the judiciary will not be able to protect minorities and uphold their constitutional rights.