The Supreme Court on April 29 dismissed pleas seeking registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over speeches delivered during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign. .A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the remarks such as “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko" (Shoot the traitors of the country) allegedly made during speeches did not disclose commission of a cognisable offence.“Upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record and the status reports, we are in agreement with the conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out,” the Court held.It noted that the speeches, though controversial, were not found to be directed against any specific community in a manner attracting criminal liability. It also held that the material did not disclose incitement to violence or public disorder sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution..The case concerned speeches delivered during the politically charged period of the Delhi Assembly elections in January 2020, when protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were underway, including demonstrations at Shaheen Bagh.According to the complainant, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, the first incident occurred on January 27, 2020, when Anurag Thakur - then Union Minister of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs - addressed an election rally in Rithala. During the rally, he led a call-and-response slogan that included the words:“Desh ke gaddaron ko… goli maaro saalon ko.”The second incident related to remarks made on January 28, 2020 by Parvesh Verma, then Member of Parliament from West Delhi and now the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi.In campaign statements and interviews, Verma warned that protesters at Shaheen Bagh would eventually "enter houses and rape and kill people", if not stopped.Karat alleged that the statements by Thakur and Verma were inflammatory and capable of inciting communal hostility..From 'goli maro' speeches to 'corona jihad': 7 hate speech cases Supreme Court dismissed.She initially approached the police seeking registration of FIRs for offences including promoting enmity between groups and outraging religious sentiments under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the police did not register any FIR.She then approached a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] seeking directions to register an FIR. On August 26, 2020, the Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 CrPC was required before initiating prosecution against public officials.This view was affirmed by the Delhi High Court on June 13, 2022, which held that sanction was a condition precedent even at the stage of directing investigation against public functionaries.Karat then moved the Supreme Court. .Before the top court, the Karat challenged this interpretation of law and sought directions for registration of FIRs against the two political leaders.The Supreme Court examined the legal position relating to sanction and clarified that the requirement arises only after a Magistrate takes cognisance of an offence, not at the earlier stage of ordering investigation.Explaining the legal position, the Court observed that directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance of an offence and therefore does not require prior sanction.The Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s legal finding on this aspect.However, after examining the content of the speeches and material placed on record, the Court declined to direct registration of FIRs.The Bench recorded its agreement with the findings of the High Court that the material did not disclose commission of a cognisable offence..The judgment formed part of a larger batch of cases relating to hate speech, election rhetoric, media broadcasts and communal narratives, in which the Court reiterated that existing criminal law provisions provide adequate remedies to address hate speech offences..[Read Judgement]
