Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Denial Of Sanction To Prosecute UP CM Yogi Adityanath In 2007 Case Alleging Hate Speech

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the subsequent events have rendered the appeal into a purely academic exercise.

"We think it appropriate that the legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case", the bench observed.

The appellant Parvez Parwaz had alleged that Yogi Adityanath had made anti-Muslim hate remarks while addressing "Hindu Yuva Vahini" activists in a meeting held in Gorakhpur on January 27, 2007. He challenged the decision taken by the UP Government on May 3, 2017 refusing sanction to prosecute Adityanath and also the closure report filed in the case. He had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the petition on February 22, 2018, following which he filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, for the appellant, contended that the accused, who was a Member of Parliament and had allegedly made a hate speech, later on became the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and thereby, the Executive Head of the State. In such a situation, it is the Governor of the State who is empowered to consider the question of grant of sanction in terms of the Rules of Business, it was contended. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, contended that nothing survives in this matter except for a mere academic exercise, as a closure report has already been filed by the investigating agency.

Referring to Section 196 CrPC, the bench observed:

The words "No Court shall take cognizance" employed in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against 'taking of  cognizance by the Court'. In other words, it creates no bar against registration of a crime or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as contemplated under Section 173, CrPC

The court noted that, in this case, the investigation has culminated in a closure / refer report and that protest petition has been filed which is pending consideration before the trial Court. These subsequent events have rendered the present appeal into a purely academic exercise, the court noted.

"We do not think it necessary to go into the contentions raised by both sides on the issue of denial of sanction for prosecution and the legal pleas sought to be raised in relation to the said issue. However, we think it appropriate that the legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case", the court said while dismissing the appeal.

Case details

Parvez Parwaz vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716 | CrA 1343 OF 2022 | 26 August 2022 | CJI NV Ramana, Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar

Headnotes

Summary - Appeal against denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007 - Subsequent events have rendered the appeal into a purely academic exercise  - Legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 196 -  The words "No Court shall take cognizance" employed in Section 196 CrPC and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against 'taking of cognizance by the Court'  - It creates no bar against registration of a crime or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as contemplated under Section 173, CrPC. (Para 10)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment