SC finds no cognisable offence in hate speech case against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma

The Supreme Court has observed that no cognizable offence could be made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma regarding their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 protests against the CAA in Delhi. Thakur is a former Union Minister, and Verma is a minister in the Delhi government.

The observations were made by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta during the hearing of a batch of pleas concerning hate speeches. The bench also dealt with the petition filed by CPI (M) leaders Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari, who had challenged a June 2022 verdict of the Delhi High Court.

Challenge to Delhi HC verdict

The petition challenging the trial court's refusal to direct registration of an FIR against Thakur and Verma for their alleged hate speeches over the anti-CAA protest at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh was dismissed by the Delhi High Court.

Also Read: Assam CM's wife case: SC grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera

The top court further stated that the High Court, on an independent assessment, came to the conclusion that the speeches do not disclose commission of any cognisable offence, and also observed that the statements were not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder.

SC finds no cognisable offence

"Upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record, including the alleged speeches, the status report dated February 26, 2020, submitted before the trial court, and the reasons recorded by the courts below, we are in agreement with the conclusion that no cognisable offence is made out," the top court said in its order on April 29.

Also Read: SC pulls up Centre over delay in filing airfare regulation affidavit

The CPI (M) leaders had claimed that on January 27, 2020, Thakur allegedly made a hate speech at a rally in Rithala. They had further claimed that on January 28, 2020, Verma allegedly made inflammatory hate speeches.

Trial court cites sanction requirement

A trial court on August 26, 2020, dismissed the petitioners' complaint on the ground that it was not sustainable as the requisite sanction from the competent authority was not obtained.

Also Read: SC urges law review on abortion limits in rape cases amid minor's pregnancy plea

In its verdict, the apex court observed the high court had declined to direct registration of an FIR because prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had not been obtained.

‘Sanction needed only at cognisance stage’

The bench said the scheme of the erstwhile CrPC does not contemplate any embargo on the direction for registration of an FIR or the conduct of investigation at the pre-cognisance stage.

"To hold otherwise would amount to introducing a restriction not envisaged by the legislature," the top court said, adding, "The requirement of sanction is, therefore, a condition precedent only for taking cognisance and not for the registration of an FIR or for the conduct of investigation". It said any interpretation that makes the registration of an FIR contingent upon prior sanction would invert this statutory scheme and render the provisions relating to investigation unworkable.

(With agency inputs)