Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Direct Politician's Arrest In Hate Speech FIR; Says Courts Can't Micromanage Investigations

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the authorities to take time-bound coercive action against Johar Chhattisgarh Party leader Amit Baghel, including his arrest, a thorough investigation and filing of a charge sheet in all pending FIRs registered against him for hate speech.In doing so the court said that mere assertion of “State apathy” claiming that State authorities were acting arbitrarily, discriminately or with ulterior motive, without substantiating facts, is insufficient to justify judicial intervention.A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru was dealing with a plea alleging ineffective State action against Baghel for allegedly propagating “continued and vitriolic hate speech” and promoting communal enmity. Dismissing the petition, the Court held:"The Petitioner has not brought forth any cogent material to demonstrate that the investigating agency has either shut the investigation or refused to act on the FIRs. Mere dissatisfaction with the pace or nature of investigation cannot, in law, furnish a ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Article 226 of the Constitution. The reliefs sought by the Petitioner, particularly those seeking directions for immediate arrest, the manner of investigation, supervision by a senior officer of a particular rank, and periodic status reports, amount to a prayer for judicial supervision and micromanagement of criminal investigation. Such reliefs, if granted, would impermissibly encroach upon the statutory domain of the investigating agency and violate the well-settled principle that the Court cannot direct the police to arrest a particular individual, nor can it predetermine the course or outcome of investigation.”“In the present case, no material has been placed on record to establish that the State authorities have acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or with ulterior motive. The mere assertion of “State apathy,” without substantiating facts, is insufficient to justify judicial intervention”, the Court added.Apart from seeking coercive action, the plea sought nomination of a senior police officer, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, to personally supervise and monitor the investigation in all FIRs and to ensure that a consolidated chargesheet is filed in an “expeditious and time-bound manner.”The petitioner alleged that Baghel was a habitual offender facing multiple criminal cases for promoting communal enmity and had repeatedly made blasphemous and derogatory remarks against Agrawal, Sindhi, and Jain communities and their revered figures. It was alleged that acts of such nature, which pose a threat to communal harmony, were argued to be punishable offences under IPC/BNS. Despite this, the State had failed to take any coercive action against him.The State argued that FIRs had already been registered and investigation by the police was underway. It was submitted that mere existence of allegations does not justify automatic invocation of penal or preventive measures and that the petitioner was trying to dictate the manner of investigation without allowing the statutory process to unfold.The Court reiterated that while the State is obligated to register FIRs and maintain public order, Courts must refrain from issuing directions that interfere with investigative discretion unless there exists clear evidence of mala fides, deliberate inaction, or a complete failure of the machinery. In this regard, the Court noted,“The Petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstance to indicate non-compliance with these guidelines, nor is there any imminent threat to public order warranting extraordinary measures. It is settled law that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the police to submit a charge sheet or to carry out investigation in a particular manner, as doing so would compromise the independence of investigation and the statutory protections embedded in the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Petitioner's prayer for consolidated supervision and consolidated charge sheet is likewise misconceived and unsupported by any statutory requirement.”The petition was accordingly dismissed.Case Title: Amit Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh and OrsWPCR No. 585 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Direct Politician's Arrest In Hate Speech FIR; Says Courts Can't Micromanage Investigations

Saahas Arora

Tags