The Supreme Court of India has cleared Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma of allegations of hate speech during the January 2020 anti-CAA protests in Delhi, accepting the finding that no cognizable offence was made out against them.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India cleared Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma in a complaint that alleged hate speech during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in Delhi in January 2020.
The Court accepted the finding that “no cognizable offence is made out” against the two BJP leaders.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, which affirmed the conclusions reached by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had earlier noted that the statements attributed to the leaders did not lead to communal tension or result in any public disorder.
The bench said in its order,
“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 cognizable offence is made out,”
Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari, the petitioners, claimed that Thakur allegedly raised the slogan “desh ke gaddaron ko” at a rally on January 27, 2020, and urged the crowd to respond with “goli maaro saalon ko”. They further alleged that on January 28, 2020, Verma made inflammatory remarks while campaigning for the BJP and, in an interview, warned about using force to remove protesters at Shaheen Bagh.
The petitioners first approached the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Parliament Street SHO, seeking the registration of FIRs against the two leaders. After their request was not acted upon, they approached the Rouse Avenue Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (I) for directions.
However, the trial court dismissed the complaint on August 26, 2020, holding that it could not be entertained without prior sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the accused persons.
Later, on June 13, 2022, the Delhi High Court also rejected the plea, observing that
“the statements were not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder”.
It also ruled that for offences falling under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a magistrate could not order registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) without prior sanction.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that aspect of the reasoning used by the lower courts. It explained that the need for prior sanction becomes relevant only at the stage when a magistrate takes cognizance, and not earlier.
The bench said,
“The scheme of CrPC does not contemplate any embargo on the direction for registration of an FIR or the conduct of investigation at the pre-cognizance stage. To hold otherwise would amount to introducing a restriction not envisaged by the legislature. The process of criminal law is sequential: information of a cognizable offence must first be received; an FIR must then be registered; investigation must follow; a report under Section 173 of CrPC must thereafter be submitted; and it is only at that stage that the question of taking cognizance arises,”
Reiterating the established legal position, the Court stated,
“The position of law, as crystallised by this Court, is unequivocal. Where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. The police, in such circumstances, have no discretion in the matter, either under the statutory scheme or by way of interpretative latitude.”
The Court also underscored the responsibility of authorities, adding,
“Failure on the part of the authorities to perform their statutory duties at the threshold stage not only defeats the legislative intent but also places the ordinary citizen in a position of vulnerability against institutional inaction. The rule of law mandates that the machinery of investigation be set in motion in accordance with law, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE