The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a hate speech complaint against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma
According to The Indian Express, the Delhi High Court on Monday declined a petition seeking criminal charges against Union minister Anurag Thakur and Bharatiya Janata Party MP Parvesh Verma for hate speech.
Thakur was heard saying “desh ke gaddaron ko” at a rally in January 2020, and the crowd answered with “goli maaro saalon ko.” The slogan means “kill the traitors,” with the profanity “traitors” referring to those protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act.
In his speech, Parvesh Verma warned the crowd that the “thousands of protestors” assembled at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh would “rape their sisters and daughters and kill them.”
The statements were given in advance of the Delhi Assembly elections in 2020. Soon after, in February, riots erupted in North East Delhi, killing 53 people and injuring hundreds more. Muslims made up the majority of those slain.
Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) filed the complaint against the BJP leaders. On March 25, the court had reserved its decision.
According to Live Law, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh supported a magistrate’s decision and stated that the petitioners had not implemented the prescribed procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining the registration of a first information report in such circumstances.
The court ruled that the government’s approval was required before filing a FIR in the case.
Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 153B (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 298 (uttering words with intent to hurt religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 505 (public mischief), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code were the criteria for the FIR filed by Karat and Tiwari.
The prosecution of violations under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code requires prior approval from the Centre or a state government, according to Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioners argued that this sanction was unnecessary at the time of the FIR’s registration.
“Any application for sanction by the complainant at this stage would be without the benefit of materials and evidence obtained during investigation,” the petition stated. This argument, however, was rejected by the court.
While reserving his order on March 25, Justice Singh questioned whether guilt could be inferred from words uttered “with a smile.”
He further stated that anyone might be referred to as “ye log” (these people) in the talks, and that the term did not relate to any specific community.
