Hate speeches | SC issues notice to Delhi Police on Brinda Karat’s plea seeking FIR against Anurag Thakur, Pravesh Verma

A Bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna said the remark “goli maaro” was “certainly not said in terms of a medical prescription”

April 17, 2023 04:48 pm | Updated 06:21 pm IST - NEW DELHI

Union Minister Anurag Thakur, adrressing an election campaign ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections 2020 on Janury 27, 2020, egged on participants to raise an incendiary slogan after he lashed out at anti-CAA protestors. File

Union Minister Anurag Thakur, adrressing an election campaign ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections 2020 on Janury 27, 2020, egged on participants to raise an incendiary slogan after he lashed out at anti-CAA protestors. File | Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Police on a plea by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari against the trial court’s refusal to lodge FIRs against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP leader Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches on anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests at Shaheen Bagh in 2020.

A Bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna listed the case for hearing after three weeks.

The court prima facie remarked orally in the hearing that the lower courts’ conclusion that sanction under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was required before taking cognisance may be wrong.

Referring to a snippet ‘desh ke gaddaro ko goli maaro...’ [shoot the traitors] from one of the alleged speeches, the Bench said the remark “goli maaro” was “certainly not said in terms of a medical prescription”.

The Delhi High Court had in June last year refused to set aside the trial court’s refusal to direct the registration of an FIR against Mr. Thakur and Mr. Verma for their alleged hate speeches.

Also Read | Delhi riots: Why no FIR against Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, asks UAPA accused

The High Court had refused to interfere with the trial court’s order and said under the law, the requisite sanction is required to be obtained from the competent authority for the registration of FIR in the present facts.

It had noted that the Delhi Police had conducted a preliminary inquiry in the matter and informed the trial court that prima facie no cognisable offence was made out and that for ordering any investigation, the trial court was required to take cognisance of the facts and evidence before it, which was not permissible without a valid sanction.

It was the petitioners’ grievance that Mr. Thakur, at a rally on January 27, 2020, allegedly egged on the crowd to raise an incendiary slogan after lashing out at anti-CAA protesters.

The Delhi Police had defended the trial court order,

In the complaint, Ms. Karat and Mr. Tiwari had sought lodging of FIRs under various sections, including 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.