The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, refusing to reconsider its April 29 judgment that declined to direct the registration of an FIR against BJP MP Anurag Thakur over his alleged “goli maaro” speech during the anti-CAA protests in 2020.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that there was no error in its earlier decision warranting review.
“We have gone through the review petition as well as the grounds in support thereof. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration,” the Court said in its July 29 order.
The Bench also rejected Karat’s application seeking an oral hearing of the review petition in open court.
Court Had Earlier Clarified Law on Prior Sanction
In its April 29 judgment, the Supreme Court partly allowed Karat’s appeal by disagreeing with the legal reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court and the trial court, which had held that prior sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was necessary before directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The apex court clarified that prior sanction is required only at the stage when a court takes cognisance of an offence, and not at the stage of directing registration of an FIR or ordering an investigation.
The Court held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation is a pre-cognisance exercise and that making FIR registration dependent on prior sanction would be contrary to the statutory scheme governing criminal investigations.
No Cognisable Offence Made Out, Says Court
Despite correcting the legal position on prior sanction, the Supreme Court upheld the ultimate conclusion of the courts below and refused to order registration of an FIR.
After independently examining the speeches, the status report filed by the Delhi Police and the material on record, the Court held that no cognisable offence was disclosed.
The April judgment observed that, upon careful consideration of the material, the allegations did not make out a case requiring registration of an FIR.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Brinda Karat seeking registration of an FIR against Anurag Thakur and former BJP MP Parvesh Verma over speeches delivered during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in January 2020.
After the Delhi Police did not act on the complaint, Karat approached the trial court under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking directions for registration of an FIR. The trial court rejected the plea, holding that prior sanction was required, and the Delhi High Court affirmed that decision.
While the Supreme Court later held that the lower courts had erred on the question of prior sanction, it ultimately concluded that the speeches did not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence and therefore declined to direct registration of an FIR.
