The Supreme Court of India has ruled that no cognizable offense can be made out against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma concerning alleged hate speeches delivered during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Delhi in 2020. The apex court’s decision came on April 29 in a batch of petitions addressing the issue of hate speeches, including one filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari. This ruling upholds a June 2022 verdict by the Delhi High Court, which had previously dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s refusal to direct the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Thakur and Verma. The original complaint stemmed from speeches allegedly made by Thakur at a rally in Rithala on January 27, 2020, and by Verma on January 28, 2020, which were described as inflammatory and hateful in the context of the Shaheen Bagh protests.
As per information available with TahirRihat.com, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, meticulously reviewed the material presented, including transcripts of the alleged speeches and a status report submitted to the trial court on February 26, 2020. The bench concurred with the lower courts’ conclusion that the speeches did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offense. The High Court, in its independent assessment, had previously determined that the statements were not specifically directed at any particular community and did not incite violence or public disorder. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, affirmed this finding, stating, “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 petition filed by the CPI(M) leaders had sought an FIR against Thakur, a former union minister, and Verma, a minister in the Delhi government, for their alleged roles in propagating hate speech. A trial court had initially dismissed their complaint on August 26, 2020, citing a lack of requisite sanction from the competent authority, a prerequisite for proceeding under certain sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court, however, addressed the procedural aspect of sanction, clarifying that while prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of the CrPC is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offense, it does not impede the registration of an FIR or the conduct of an investigation at the pre-cognizance stage. The apex court emphasized that any interpretation to the contrary would introduce a legislative embargo not envisioned by Parliament and would render investigative provisions unworkable.
The Supreme Court’s detailed verdict, spanning 125 pages, delved into the broader implications of hate speech, describing it as “fundamentally antithetical” to the constitutional value of fraternity and a threat to the nation’s moral fabric. Despite this strong condemnation of hate speech in principle, the court found no legislative vacuum that would necessitate judicial intervention, asserting that the existing legal framework adequately addresses the issue. The court termed as “misconceived” the argument that the field of hate speech remained legislatively unoccupied. It further underscored the principle of separation of powers, stating that the judiciary cannot create new offenses or expand criminal liability through judicial pronouncements, as this falls within the legislative domain. The bench acknowledged that the relief sought before the trial court was confined to a direction for the registration of an FIR based on the complaint submitted by the appellants. The court reiterated that the criminal justice system is designed to balance the rights of the accused with societal interests. While sanction serves as a safeguard against vexatious prosecutions at the cognizance stage, it cannot be used to prevent the initiation of an investigation when a cognizable offense is prima facie disclosed. The court also noted that the failure of authorities to perform their statutory duties at the initial stage could lead to institutional inaction and leave ordinary citizens vulnerable.
The Supreme Court’s observation regarding the requirement of sanction highlighted that it is a condition precedent only for taking cognizance, not for the registration of an FIR or the initiation of an investigation. The court stated, “The scheme of erstwhile CrPC does not contemplate any embargo on the direction for registration of an FIR or the conduct of investigation at the pre-cognisance stage.” It further elaborated that any interpretation that makes FIR registration contingent upon prior sanction would invert the statutory scheme and render investigation provisions unworkable. The bench, while disagreeing with the High Court’s reasoning on the issue of prior sanction, ultimately found no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s ultimate conclusion to dismiss the petition. The court’s stance reinforces that while the legal framework exists to address hate speech, the specific allegations against the BJP leaders did not meet the threshold for a cognizable offense, as assessed by the courts.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.