[Hate Speech] Delhi HC Agrees To Hear On Nov 2 Brinda Karat's Plea Against Order Rejecting Plea Seeking Registration of FIR Against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma

A Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna directed Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, and Advocate Richa Kapoor, appearing for the State, to file the judgements they had cited and were planning to cite by today.

Kapoor informed the Court that she would seek permission from the concerned authorities before filing the judgments as the instant case pertained to Delhi Riots for which Special Public Prosecutors had been appointed.

In today's hearing, Aggarwal commenced his submissions by stating that the Magistrate had declined to exercise the jurisdiction which had been vested in his Court and had cited judgements which could not be applicable in the instant case. 

Aggarwal referred to the cases of Prabhu Chawla, authored by then judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, and the 2017 case of Vikram Chawla, authored by Justice Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court, to illustrate the point that the case of Prabhu Chawla was valid.

"The submission is this, I filed a Section 156(3). The Magistrate chose not to enter into the merits of the matter and ousted me on jurisdiction on the very threshold. The proposition put forth by the Magistrate is in the teeth of SC judgements", stated Aggarwal.

Aggarwal then delineated the error of jurisdiction which had been committed by the Magistrate and referred to the cases of Anil Kumar v. MK Aiyappa and L. Narayan Swami to drive home the point that the issues in the cited cases pertained to protection provided to public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"I have been ousted on the premise that the Magistrate cannot apply his mind on account of lack of sanction under Section 156(3). The provisions in my case have nothing to do with public servants and performance of public duties", submitted Aggarwal.

At this juncture, Justice Khanna directed both the parties to file the relevant judgments and listed the case for further hearing on November 2^nd.

On 26th August, a Delhi Court had rejected the petition moved by CPM leader Brinda Karat, under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Pravesh Verma for allegedly making hate speeches.

Earlier, ACMM Vishal Pahuja had reserved the Order in the said petition citing the pendency of a Writ Petition seeking similar relief before the Delhi High Court.

In her petition, Karat has sought the following remedies from the court:

1. Direct the SHO of Parliament Street Police Station to register an FIR on the complaint dated 29/01/2020 alleging commission of offences under sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 504, 505 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
2. Direct that the investigation into the FIR be monitored by issuing necessary directions to the SHO to investigate the matter fairly, properly and impartially after registration of the FIR, including the arrest of the accused.

On January 29, the Election Commission had issued a show-cause notice to Union Minister Anurag Thakur for his "desh ke gaddaron ko" slogan.

The Commission had observed in its notice that, prima facie, the remarks had the "potential of disturbing communal harmony" and the BJP MP had violated the Model Code of Conduct and electoral law.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Delhi has also sent a report to the EC concerning the West Delhi MP from BJP, Parvesh Verma's, provocative statement on Shaheen Bagh.

In an interview given to a news channel, Verma had stated that what happened to Kashmiri Pandits could happen in Delhi, claiming that lakhs of anti-CAA protesters in Shaheen Bagh could enter homes to kill and rape women.