Anti-CAA protests: Delhi HC to pronounce verdict on plea for hate speech FIR against BJP leaders on June 13

The petitioners had alleged in their complaint before the trial court that BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma had sought to incite people which purportedly led to the riots in north-east Delhi in 2020

The Delhi High Court will on June 12 pronounce its verdict on a plea by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari challenging the trial court’s refusal to direct registration of FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and his BJP colleague and MP Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches over anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh in New Delhi.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh had reserved the order on March 25 on the petition which claimed that an FIR should be lodged against the leaders as a cognisable offence is made out against the leaders and that they were only asking the police to investigate the matter.

The petitioners had alleged in their complaint before the trial court that “Thakur and Verma had sought to incite people as a result of which three incidents of firing took place at two different protest sites in Delhi”.

They had mentioned that at the Rithala rally in the National Capital, Mr. Thakur had, on January 27, 2020, egged on the crowd to raise an incendiary slogan – “shoot the traitors” – after lashing out at those protesting against the amended Citizenship Act (CAA).

They had further claimed that Mr. Verma had, on January 28, 2020, allegedly made incendiary comments against the anti-CAA protesters in Shaheen Bagh in the National Capital.

The trial court had, however, on August 26, 2021, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was not sustainable as the requisite sanction from the competent authority, the Central Government, was not obtained.

Before the high court, Delhi Police has defended the trial court order, saying that it rightly held that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments which said that if a judge is saying he does not have jurisdiction, he should not comment on merits and that is the right approach.