Underlining that it (hate attacks) was more of a political matter, a Bench of Justices B N Agarwal and G S Singhvi observed, “It is a political matter and intervention by the court would not help.”

After advocate Sugriva Dubey appearing for petitioner Salek Chand Jain, a businessman, urged the Bench to take up the matter “suo motu” on the lines of Gurjjar agitation, Justice Agarwal made it clear that a precedent was not set by that matter. “It is the lack of the political will, or else it would have been stopped. People have to be educated,” the court noted.

Agreeing on the gravity of the issue, the Bench even grilled the counsel about his knowledge of Article 355 of the Constitution. The provision that mandates the Central Government to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbances, reads as: “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.”

Observing that while the issue raised was “serious”, the petition was “non-serious” in terms of material to support the arguments, the Bench told the counsel to amend the petition. After that, it would be taken up for hearing.

Dubey argued that attacks on north Indians by the MNS had led to a chain reaction elsewhere in the country and it threatened to destroy the unity and integrity of the country. 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. The counsel claimed that the threat, if carried out, would seriously affect the country’s development as 60 per cent of the mineral resources originated from Jharkhand.