<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over alleged hate speeches being made through religious programmes, saying they were spoiling the whole atmosphere and need to be sensitised to live peacefully.</p>.<p>"What is the Dharma Sansad by the way," a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath asked senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who sought bail for Jitendra Tyagi, formerly Wasim Rizvi, arrested in Haridwar Dharma Sansad case.</p>.<p>The counsel submitted some people got together and gave speeches.</p>.<p>"They are not sensitised and are spoiling the atmosphere. Stay together peacefully, enjoy the life," the bench said.</p>.<p>Luthra agreed, "We need to be sensitive to people, nation and our citizens."</p>.<p>The court issued notice to the Uttarakhand government against the High Court's March 8 judgement declining bail to Tyagi, former chairman of UP Shia Waqf Board.</p>.<p>The bench noted the submission that the accused has been in jail for about four months in the FIR for offences which entailed maximum sentence of three years.</p>.<p>The court put the matter for consideration on May 17.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over alleged hate speeches being made through religious programmes, saying they were spoiling the whole atmosphere and need to be sensitised to live peacefully.</p>.<p>"What is the Dharma Sansad by the way," a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath asked senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who sought bail for Jitendra Tyagi, formerly Wasim Rizvi, arrested in Haridwar Dharma Sansad case.</p>.<p>The counsel submitted some people got together and gave speeches.</p>.<p>"They are not sensitised and are spoiling the atmosphere. Stay together peacefully, enjoy the life," the bench said.</p>.<p>Luthra agreed, "We need to be sensitive to people, nation and our citizens."</p>.<p>The court issued notice to the Uttarakhand government against the High Court's March 8 judgement declining bail to Tyagi, former chairman of UP Shia Waqf Board.</p>.<p>The bench noted the submission that the accused has been in jail for about four months in the FIR for offences which entailed maximum sentence of three years.</p>.<p>The court put the matter for consideration on May 17.</p>
