SC Clears Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma: No FIR For 2020 ‘Hate Speeches’

The Supreme Court has affirmed that no cognisable offence was committed by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma regarding their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 anti-CAA protests in Delhi. While upholding the decision not to register an FIR, the apex court notably disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning regarding the necessity of prior government sanction at the investigative stage.

According to PTI, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dealt with the petition filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari. The duo had challenged a June 2022 Delhi High Court verdict which dismissed their plea against a trial court's refusal to direct the registration of an FIR.

The petitioners alleged that Thakur, a former Union Minister, and Verma, a member of the Delhi government, made inflammatory remarks in January 2020 during rallies in Rithala and Shaheen Bagh. However, the top court noted that the High Court had conducted an independent assessment and concluded the speeches did not disclose a cognisable offence. The statements were found not to be directed at any specific community nor did they incite 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 bench stated.

A significant portion of the 125-page verdict addressed the legal requirement of "sanction." PTI reported that the trial court had originally dismissed the complaint on August 26, 2020, on the grounds that requisite sanction from the competent authority under Sections 196 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had not been obtained.

The Supreme Court clarified that while it agreed with the final outcome, it disapproved of the High Court's reliance on prior sanction to block an FIR. The bench remarked:

"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."

The court warned that making an FIR contingent upon prior sanction would render investigation provisions "unworkable" and place ordinary citizens in a position of vulnerability against institutional inaction. "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," the court added.

Regarding the broader issue of hate speech, the bench described it as "fundamentally antithetical" to the constitutional value of fraternity.

Peported by PTI, the court rejected the idea that a "legislative vacuum" exists. It maintained that the existing legal framework is adequate and that the doctrine of separation of powers prevents the judiciary from creating new offences or expanding criminal liability.

Ultimately, while the bench corrected the legal interpretation of when a sanction is required, it found no ground to interfere with the lower courts' conclusion that the specific speeches by Thakur and Verma did not constitute a crime.

(With inputs from PTI)