SC Rejects Review Plea Against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma in Hate Speech Case

The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition challenging its earlier decision that no cognisable offence was established against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over allegations of hate speeches during the anti-CAA protests in Delhi in 2020.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the plea filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari, stating that there was no apparent error in the previous order that required reconsideration.

The review petition challenged the apex court’s April 29 verdict, which had upheld the conclusion that the alleged speeches by the BJP leaders did not amount to a cognisable offence. The order, passed on July 29, was uploaded recently.

The case relates to allegations that Anurag Thakur, a former Union minister and BJP MP, delivered an inflammatory speech at a rally in Rithala on January 27, 2020, while Parvesh Verma, a minister in the Delhi government, allegedly made similar remarks the following day during the period of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

The CPI(M) leaders had earlier approached the courts seeking directions for registration of an FIR against the two leaders. The Delhi High Court had dismissed their plea in 2022, agreeing with the trial court’s view that the allegations did not disclose a criminal offence.

While dismissing the review plea, the Supreme Court reiterated that the alleged statements were not directed against any specific community and did not incite violence or public disorder. The court said it agreed with the findings of the lower courts that no cognisable offence was made out.

The apex court, however, clarified that the requirement of prior government sanction under relevant provisions of the CrPC applies only at the stage of taking cognisance and not for registering an FIR or conducting an investigation.

In its earlier detailed judgment, the Supreme Court observed that hate speech is contrary to the constitutional value of fraternity, but said existing laws were sufficient to deal with such cases and that courts could not create new offences through judicial intervention.