Supreme Court Adjourns Brinda Karat's Plea For FIRs Against Anurag Thakur & Parvesh Verma For Alleged Hate Speech

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal was hearing Karat and Tiwari's petition against the Delhi High Court’s refusal to set aside a trial court that had rejected their plea for registration of FIRs against the two leaders from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The court had issued notice and sought Delhi police's response to the duo's special leave petition in April.

Today's hearing was adjourned at the behest of Delhi police, despite the petitioners opposing the request. This is the third adjournment since the court agreed to hear Karat and Tiwari's plea. In May, additional time was granted to the Delhi police commissioner to file a counter affidavit in response to the special leave petition. Most recently, the hearing was again adjourned last month after Delhi police circulated a letter requesting a postponement of the hearing. 

The Justice Oka-led bench categorically stated that no request for adjournment from Delhi police would be entertained on the next date of hearing, i.e., Tuesday, October 3. The order states -

"A prayer for adjournment made by the respondent is opposed by counsel for the petitioners. Notice has been issued. This petition will have to be heard. For that purpose, it shall be listed on October 3. No further adjournment will be granted to the respondent."

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, appearing for Delhi police, also brought a January 9 order to the court's attention. By this order, the court had, on the very first day of the hearing, directed this plea to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to seek instructions on whether it would be tagged with a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speech that is currently being heard by a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The counsel for the petitioners, however, objected, saying that Karat and Tiwari's plea was 'slightly different' from the other hate speech pleas -

"On April 17, it was placed before a bench led by Justice KM Joseph (now retired). After detailed arguments were heard, notice was issued. It was not tagged with the hate speech batch because it is a slightly different issue."

ASG Raju contended that an argument was made on the petitioners' behalf pointing to the current plea's similarity with the hate speech matter. "They have said it's the same issue. It is their case," the law officer told the bench.

In view of this, the bench also directed -

"Our attention is invited to an order passed by this court on January 9. If appropriate directions have not been sought till today in terms of this order, the registry will seek necessary directions from the Chief Justice of India."

Background

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari approached the Delhi High Court in a criminal writ petition after a trial court refused to accept their plea for registration of first information reports (FIR) against the BJP leaders.

In August 2020, a trial court in Delhi dismissed the petitioners’ application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking registration of an FIR for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, observing that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code was required even at the initial stage, which had not been obtained by Karat and Tiwari.

The petitioners, however, argued that the stage of cognizance did not arise at a time when directions under Section 156(3) of the Code are given, and as such, no sanction was required under either Section 195 or Section 196 for the registration of an FIR. But, in June 2022, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Karat and Tiwari against the trial court order. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that although the writ petition was maintainable, it could not be entertained in view of the settled position of law as well as judicial rulings on the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy.

In April this year, the Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the petitioners against the Delhi High Court’s order of dismissal. While agreeing to hear the plea, a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna also observed that prima facie, the stand of the magistrate that sanction was required to register an FIR in the case, appeared to be incorrect.

Case Details

Brinda Karat & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5107 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order