The Delhi High Court has declined to direct the registration of FIRs against political leaders over alleged hate speeches linked to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, saying the material was incomplete and its authenticity not established, and noting an element of political selectivity in the way individuals and speeches were targeted.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to direct the registration of FIRs against political leaders over alleged inflammatory speeches said to have been made around the 2020 North East Delhi riots, holding that no exceptional circumstances were made out for a writ and that statutory remedies remain open to complainants [Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain pronounced the judgment, which dismissed the surviving prayers in a batch of petitions pending since 2020. The allegations against the persons named are the petitioners’ contentions; the Court recorded no finding on them, and every person named is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The prayers and the Union’s stand
The petitioners sought FIRs against leaders of different political parties, including BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, and others, under provisions including Sections 153A, 153B and 295A of the IPC, over speeches alleged to have incited violence. The Union contended that the prayers targeted identified political figures of different parties in a selective manner and appeared politically motivated.
Incomplete material, disputed context
The Bench noted that the material before it consisted of transcripts, video recordings and newspaper clippings, of which only portions or excerpts had been placed on record. It held that the completeness and authenticity of the speeches had not been established and that their context was disputed, so that no case for a writ directing registration of FIRs was made out.
‘An element of political selectivity’
The Court also observed that there was an element of political selectivity in the manner in which certain individuals and particular speeches had been targeted, while declining to record any definitive finding on the petitioners’ motivations. It held that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the registration of criminal cases through a writ.
Statutory remedies remain open
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2026), the Bench said the CrPC provides a comprehensive, multi-tiered framework, including Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200, for grievances over non-registration of FIRs, and that the field of substantive criminal law on hate speech is not unoccupied. Writ jurisdiction in such cases is extraordinary, it said, and not to be invoked routinely. The dismissal does not preclude competent authorities or jurisdictional courts from taking such action as is permissible in accordance with law in individual cases.
Why The Hate Speeches Judgment Matters
The ruling closes the writ route for compelling FIRs on hate-speech complaints in this batch and points complainants to the ordinary statutory remedies. It does not decide whether any speech amounted to an offence, and it leaves any individual free to pursue remedies available in law.
Case Title: Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(CRL) 665/2020 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves and Kirti Uppal, Advocates Kirti Singh and M. Taiyab Khan. For the Respondents: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair.