The Supreme Court of India has upheld a previous judicial decision regarding allegations of hate speech against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma. On Monday, the apex court ruled that no cognizable offense was established in the complaints filed against the two politicians concerning remarks made during the 2020 anti-CAA protests in Delhi.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The case reached the Supreme Court via a petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari. The petitioners were challenging a Delhi High Court order that had refused to interfere with a trial court’s decision. That lower court had previously declined to direct the Delhi Police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Thakur and Verma.
The allegations centered on speeches delivered by the BJP leaders during the high-tension period of the Shaheen Bagh protests, which were held in opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The petitioners argued that the rhetoric used by the politicians constituted hate speech and incitement to violence, warranting a formal criminal investigation.
The Court’s Rationale
In reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court bench examined whether the comments met the legal threshold for a “cognizable offense”—an offense for which the police can make an arrest without a warrant and start an investigation without court permission. The bench concluded that the legal requirements to mandate an FIR had not been satisfied based on the evidence presented in this specific legal context.
The legal battle has also focused on Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires prior sanction from the government to prosecute individuals for offenses involving hate speech or promoting enmity between groups. Lower courts had previously noted that such sanctions were not obtained by the complainants before seeking the registration of the FIR.
Impact of the Ruling
This decision provides significant legal relief for Anurag Thakur, a prominent Union Minister, and Parvesh Verma, a former Member of Parliament. It also highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny regarding the balance between freedom of political speech and the legal definitions of inflammatory rhetoric in India’s complex political landscape.
