Brinda Karat Seeks Review Of Supreme Court's Clean Chit To Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma In Hate Speech Case

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its April 29 judgment which held that no cognizable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.

The review petition challenges the portion of the judgment in which the Court, after holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not required for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), nevertheless agreed with the conclusion that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the speeches.

Karat had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's order, which had upheld the Magistrate's refusal to direct the registration of a First Information Report against the BJP leaders under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Karat had alleged that Thakur's January 27, 2020, at a ralling shouting "desh ke gaddaron ko, goli marron saalon ko," and Verma's speeches referring to the Shaheen Bagh protestors as "infiltrators" who would “enter your homes and rape your daughters and sisters and kill them" during the CAA protests made out a cognisable offence under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505 IPC. 

On April 29, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed her plea, taking a view that no cognisable offence was made out. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's view that no hate speech offence was made out since the speeches did not refer to any particular community.

According to the petition, the Supreme Court committed an "error apparent on the face of the record" by deciding the merits of the hate speech allegations even though neither the trial court nor the Delhi High Court had examined them. It contends that the arguments before the Supreme Court were confined to the legal issue of whether prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was necessary before directing investigation under Section 156(3).

The petition states that the Delhi High Court had expressly limited itself to deciding the sanction issue and had recorded that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had "not entered into the merits of the case." It further notes that the High Court had clarified that any observations in its judgment would have no bearing on the merits of the allegations in any future proceedings.

However, while partly allowing Karat's appeal by overruling the High Court's view on the sanction requirement, the Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 136 to 138 of its judgment that it agreed with the conclusion that "no cognizable offence is made out." The review petition argues that this finding was rendered without a proper adjudication of the factual allegations or hearing detailed arguments on the merits.

Karat has also relied upon orders passed by the Election Commission of India in January 2020 against Thakur and Verma. The petition points out that the Election Commission found that the impugned speeches violated the Model Code of Conduct, had the potential to aggravate existing differences and create mutual hatred between religious communities, and consequently removed both leaders from the list of BJP's star campaigners while imposing campaign bans.

The petition further states that the police status report submitted before the trial court concluded that no cognizable offence was disclosed, reasoning that the slogan did not target any specific community and that the statements regarding Shaheen Bagh amounted to political criticism. According to Karat, the Supreme Court reiterated this conclusion without assigning independent reasons despite the evidentiary material placed before it, including video recordings and the Election Commission's findings.

Seeking reconsideration, the review petition urges the Supreme Court to recall its finding that no cognizable offence was made out and to adjudicate the merits of the hate speech allegations after hearing the parties on that issue.

The Review petition has been filed through Advocate Sylona Mohapatra, Tara Nirula and Adit Pujari