The matter concerned speeches delivered during the politically charged period of the Delhi Assembly elections in January 2020, when protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were underway, including demonstrations at Shaheen Bagh.
CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat sought the registration of criminal cases against Thakur and Verma for allegedly making inflammatory remarks.
She said that the first incident occurred on January 27, 2020, when Anurag Thakur – then Union Minister of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs – addressed an election rally in Rithala. During the rally, he led a call-and-response slogan that included the words:
“Desh ke gaddaron ko… goli maaro saalon ko.”
The second incident related to remarks made on January 28, 2020 by Parvesh Verma, then Member of Parliament from West Delhi and now the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi.
In campaign statements and interviews, Verma warned that protesters at Shaheen Bagh would eventually “enter houses and rape and kill people”, if not stopped.
Karat first approached the Delhi police, seeking that they registered a criminal case against Thakur and Verma for the offences of promoting enmity between groups and outraging religious sentiments under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), among other provisions.
After the police refused to register a criminal case, Karat approached a trial court seeking directions to order the police to register a first information report (FIR) against Thakur and Verma.
The trial court rejected Karat’s plea. It held that prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was required before initiating prosecution against public officials.
The Delhi High Court affirmed this view in 2022, prompting Karat to approach the Supreme Court.
On April 29 this year, the Supreme Court refused to order the registration of any FIR.
It partly allowed Karat’s plea by holding that prior sanction is not required at the pre-cognisance stage for a Magistrate to order investigation into the offences alleged against Thakur and Verma.
However, after independently examining Thakur’s and Verma’s speeches, the Supreme Court concluded that no cognisable offence was disclosed.
Karat then filed a review plea questioning the correctness of the April 29 verdict, which has now been dismissed by the top court.
