15 May 2023 12:59 PM GMT
The Supreme Court, on Monday, granted time to the Commissioner, Delhi Police to file a counter affidavit in a plea filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in 2020. A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna was considering the Special...
The Supreme Court, on Monday, granted time to the Commissioner, Delhi Police to file a counter affidavit in a plea filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in 2020.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna was considering the Special Leave Petition filed against the Delhi High Court’s order of dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by Karat against a trial court order rejecting her plea for registration of FIRs against the BJP leaders. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission of Delhi Police entered appearance and sought time to file counter. Accordingly, the Bench granted him time to do the same. It directed the matter to be listed next on 14th August, 2023.
On the previous occasion, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the Magistrate had refused to order registration of FIR against the two citing lack of sanction. While issuing notice on the petition, the Supreme Court, prima facie, observed that the stand of the Magistrate that sanction is required to register FIR in the case, appears to be incorrect. The Bench was also informed on the last date of hearing that the Magistrate did not actually accept the status report, filed by the Delhi Police, which concluded that no offence was made out against the accused.
Karat's plea refers to various speeches allegedly made by the two politicians including the speech dated January 27, 2020 given by Anurag Thakur at a rally shouting the slogan "desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko". Reference has also been made to another speech made by Parvesh Verma dated January 27-28, 2020, while campaigning for Bharatiya Janata Party and subsequently in an interview given to the media.
The plea alleges that the speech threatened use of force to remove protestors who were protesting at Shaheen Bagh in the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and to promote hatred and enmity against Muslim persons by portraying them as invaders who will enter houses and rape and kill people.
The Delhi High Court was of the view that although the writ petition was maintainable, the same could not be entertained in view of the settled position of law as well as judicial rulings on existence of an efficacious alternative remedy. It had observed that the Trial Court had not entered into merits of the case while passing the order and that it had decided the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction.It had further stated that the High Courts should not ordinarily as a matter of routine exercise its power under Article 226 if efficacious alternative remedy is available and that if done so, it would open pandora box for other cases.
[Case Title: Brinda Karat And Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 5107/2023]
Click Here To Read/Download Order