The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh has observed that the petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur & Parvesh Verma for alleged hate speeches in 2020, be listed before the bench headed by Justice K M Joseph before whom similar matters are pending.During Monday’s hearing, Justice...
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh has observed that the petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur & Parvesh Verma for alleged hate speeches in 2020, be listed before the bench headed by Justice K M Joseph before whom similar matters are pending.
During Monday’s hearing, Justice Sanjiv Khanna inquired from the Counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether there was already a matter pending before the top court on similar issues.
The counsel for the petitioner informed that the bench led by Justice KM Joseph was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speech. The bench, remarking that it would be better if the matter was listed before the same bench, ordered, “Matter be listed before the same bench subject to orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.”
It may be noted that in October last year, a bench led by Justice KM Joseph had ordered that suo motu police action should be taken against hate speech, while hearing a batch of petitions relating to hate speech incidents at Dharam Sansad events.
Background
The SLP has been filed against the
Delhi High Court’s order of dismissal of the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.
The Delhi High Court was of the view that although the writ petition was maintainable, the same could not be entertained in view of the settled position of law as well as judicial rulings on existence of an efficacious alternative remedy.
The Court added that the petitioners' counsel failed to follow the prescribed mechanism under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court observed that the Trial Court had not entered into merits of the case while passing the order and that it had decided the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction.
It further added that the High Courts should not ordinarily as a matter of routine exercise its power under Article 226 in such matters if efficacious alternative remedy is available and that if done so, it would open pandora box for other cases.
The Court was of the view that in cases where effective alternative remedy is available, the same must be exhausted and that High Court intervention should not be exercised except in emergent cases, in the interest of justice.
The plea refers to various speeches made by the two politicians including the speech dated January 27, 2020 given by Anurag Thakur at a rally shouting the slogan "desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko".
Reference has also been made to another speech made by Parvesh Verma dated January 27-28, 2020, while campaigning for Bhartiya Janata Party and subsequently in an interview given to ANI.
The plea alleges that the speech threatened use of force to remove protestors who were protesting at Shaheen Bagh in the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and to promote hatred and enmity against Muslim persons by portraying them as invaders who will enter houses and rape and kill people.
Case Title: Brinda Karat And Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr. Diary No. 35545/2022