Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIRs Against BJP Leaders Over 2020 Speeches

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over alleged hate speeches made in January 2020, during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The court determined that no cognizable offense was made out based on the speeches, upholding a previous decision by the Delhi High Court.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari, who alleged that the speeches incited violence and hatred against protestors, particularly Muslims. The petition specifically referenced a rally where Anurag Thakur led a chant of “desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko” (“shoot the traitors of the country”), and remarks made by Parvesh Verma threatening to remove protestors from Shaheen Bagh and alleging they would invade homes and commit violence.

Court Finds No Incitement to Violence

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, delivering the judgment, stated that after reviewing the speeches and related materials, they agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that no cognizable offense was established. According to the court, the speeches did not incite communal 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 cognizable offence is made out,” the court order stated.

The Delhi High Court had previously upheld a magistrate’s decision refusing to direct the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the two leaders. The Supreme Court’s decision affirms this earlier ruling.

Prior Sanction Not Required for FIR Registration

While upholding the High Court’s decision on the merits of the case, the Supreme Court also addressed a procedural point. The court disagreed with the High Court’s observation that prior sanction was required before a magistrate could order the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This aspect of the High Court’s ruling was overturned.

Hate Speech and Legal Framework

The case has drawn attention to the legal framework surrounding hate speech in India. Recent reports indicate that while laws exist to address hate speech, gaps remain in their implementation. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the difficulty in establishing a direct link between political speech and incitement to violence, even when the language is controversial. A recent ruling, as reported by The Times of India, affirmed that existing laws are adequate to deal with hate speech, but acknowledged the need to address remaining gaps.

The Supreme Court also noted, as reported by The Hindu, that hate speech often stems from an “us versus them” mindset. This observation highlights the underlying societal factors that contribute to the problem, even as legal challenges face difficulties in proving direct causation.

The court’s decision is likely to be seen as a setback for those seeking to hold political figures accountable for inflammatory rhetoric. However, it also reinforces the principle that speech, even if offensive, must be directly linked to incitement of violence to warrant criminal prosecution.