The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition seeking to overturn its previous ruling that cleared former Union minister Anurag Thakur and Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma of allegations involving hate speech during the 2020 anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests in the national capital.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta affirmed that its earlier decision contained no error warranting reconsideration. The order, issued on July 29, brings an end to the legal challenge mounted by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari against the court’s April 29 verdict.
No Cognisable Offence Disclosed
In its initial April ruling, the top court concurred with earlier findings by the Delhi High Court that statements made by the Bharatiya Janata Party leaders did not provoke public disorder or incite communal violence. After evaluating the recorded material, the alleged addresses, and a status report submitted by the police on February 26, 2020, the apex court concluded that no cognisable offence had been established.
Reviewing the challenge filed by Karat and Tiwari, the two-judge bench noted that after examining the petition and its supporting grounds, there was no apparent error in the challenged order to justify re-examining the matter.
Origins Of The Dispute
The legal proceedings stem from campaign rallies held ahead of the Delhi assembly elections in early 2020. According to the petitioners, Thakur delivered a hate speech at a public rally on January 27, 2020, while Verma made inflammatory statements the following day. The complainants also cited a media interview in which Verma threatened the use of force to clear demonstrators gathered at Shaheen Bagh.
Karat and Tiwari initially requested the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Parliament Street station house officer to lodge First Information Reports against both leaders. Following police inaction, the petitioners approached the Rouse Avenue magistrate court. The local court rejected the application on August 26, 2020, holding that it was not legally maintainable without prior sanction from competent authorities to prosecute the named leaders.
High Court Ruling And Sanction Clarity
The petitioners subsequently challenged the magistrate’s decision in the Delhi High Court. On June 13, 2022, the High Court dismissed their pleas, observing that the remarks were not targeted at any specific community and did not provoke violence. The High Court also held that judicial magistrates could not direct police investigations under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences covered under Section 196 of the Code without prior government approval.
While the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the clearance granted to Thakur and Verma on the grounds that no cognisable offence was committed, it differed with the lower courts regarding the timing of statutory sanction. In its April judgment, the apex court clarified that prior sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC is required only when a magistrate takes cognisance of an offence, not at the preliminary stage of registering an FIR. The court emphasized that police are legally required to register an FIR whenever information reveals a cognisable crime, noting that investigative authorities must act strictly according to procedure without being influenced by external considerations.
