Supreme Court Upholds Relief for BJP Figures in 2020 Hate Speech Dispute
India's highest court has dismissed a review petition seeking to prosecute BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma. The bench reaffirmed its decision that the controversial statements did not constitute a cognizable offense.
Key takeaways
- Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the review petition filed by CPI(M) leaders against the April 2026 order.
- The Court maintained that allegations against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma failed to establish a cognizable offense.
- The ruling clarified that prior government sanction is not required for a magistrate to order an initial investigation.
- The Delhi High Court previously found the leaders' remarks did not incite public disorder or target specific communities.
Apex Court Declines to Reopen Hate Speech Case
The Supreme Court of India has solidified its earlier stance regarding allegations against former Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP leader Parvesh Verma. A bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected a review petition filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari. The petitioners sought to overturn an April 29, 2026, order that protected the politicians from prosecution related to speeches made during the 2020 anti-CAA protests in Delhi.
In its July 29, 2026, ruling, the bench stated it found no errors in the previous judgment that would justify a reconsideration. The court had previously evaluated the speeches and concluded that the evidence presented did not establish a cognizable offense, aligning with earlier assessments from lower judicial bodies.
Legal Path and Procedural History
The litigation began when Karat and Tiwari initially approached the Delhi Police and later the Rouse Avenue Court to file First Information Reports (FIRs) against the two leaders. The petitioners claimed the rhetoric used by Thakur and Verma incited violence, citing three firing incidents at protest sites. However, the trial court dismissed the complaint in August 2020, citing a lack of prior government sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
When the matter reached the Delhi High Court in June 2022, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh upheld the dismissal. The High Court observed that the remarks were not targeted at a specific community and did not directly incite public disorder. While the Supreme Court ultimately agreed that no crime was committed, it did offer a significant legal clarification regarding procedural mandates.
Clarification on Sanction Requirements
Although the Supreme Court refused to order a trial, it corrected a legal interpretation used by the lower courts. The bench clarified that prior government sanction is not a prerequisite at the pre-cognizance stage. Instead, a magistrate can order an investigation without such approval; the requirement for sanction only triggers when the court formally takes cognizance of the offenses.
- The court emphasized that police have no discretion when information discloses a cognizable offense.
- It warned that institutional inaction at the start of the criminal process can undermine the rule of law.
- The final ruling maintains that despite these procedural nuances, the specific allegations against Thakur and Verma lacked the substance required for criminal proceedings.
Source: The Hindu — National
Related stories
Nalgonda Police Officer Reaches Scene in Five Minutes to Prevent Domestic Tragedy
