SC Clears Thakur, Verma In 2020 Hate Speech Case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that no cognisable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 anti-CAA protests in Delhi. In a 125-page judgment delivered on April 29, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the conclusion of the Delhi High Court, which had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR. The case arose from a petition filed by CPM leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari challenging a June 2022 Delhi High Court order that dismissed their plea against a trial court decision refusing to direct registration of an FIR over speeches linked to the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh. The apex court noted that the High Court, after independent assessment, found that the speeches did not disclose any cognisable offence and were neither directed against a specific community nor capable of inciting violence or public disorder. “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 court said. The petitioners had alleged that Thakur made a hate speech at a rally in Rithala on January 27, 2020, and that Verma made inflammatory speeches the following day. A trial court had dismissed their complaint on August 26, 2020, citing lack of prior sanction from the competent authority. The High Court had also declined to order an FIR on similar grounds, referring to Sections 196 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning, holding that prior sanction is not required at the stage of registration of an FIR or investigation, but only for taking cognisance. “To hold otherwise would amount to introducing a restriction not envisaged by the legislature…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. The court added that making FIR registration contingent on prior sanction would undermine the statutory scheme and hinder investigation. “While the requirement of sanction serves as a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecution at the stage of cognizance, it cannot be permitted to operate as a shield to prevent the very initiation of the investigative process where a cognisable offence is disclosed,” it observed. At the same time, the Bench said it found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s final conclusion that no offence was made out. The court also observed that hate speech is “fundamentally antithetical” to constitutional values of fraternity but said the existing legal framework adequately addresses the issue and does not reflect any legislative vacuum.



Source link