Dismissal of case against hate mongers is unfair judicial process: Brinda Karat

  •  
  •  
  •  

By Abdul Bar Masoud

New Delhi:  CPI (M)  on Thursday strongly reacted to the ruling of a  Delhi court’s ruling  which dismissed an application seeking registration of an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP Delhi MP Parvesh Verma for hate speeches.  The party termed the ruling as “an unfair judicial process” which has resulted in excusing those who make hate speeches.

CPI (M) Polit Bureau Member, and former MP, Brinda Karat said the order is shocking and surprising.

“The ruling is surprising and disappointing. We had filed a complaint with Delhi police in January against the hate speeches made by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma and asked for filing of a FIR under relevant provisions including Sec 153 an IPC.”

Karat along with local leader K.M. Tiwari had filed the application in the court seeking direction to the Parliament Street Police Station to file an FIR against the two for promoting enmity, acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and criminal intimidation.

The application was filed after an inflammatory slogan “desh ke ghaddaron ko, goli maaro s*** ko” (Shoot the traitors) was raised at a public rally addressed by Thakur on January 27 in Delhi. Parvesh Verma had also allegedly passed inflammatory remarks.

“We filed an application in the appropriate Magistrate’s Court as per procedure and sought lodging of FIRs under various sections, including 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the IPC.”

The court heard full arguments from our side as the Complainants, as well as from the Delhi Police who argued that no cognizable offence was made out, Karat said.

Judgment was reserved but since others went to the High Court it was delayed. Now that HC asked the magistrate to dispose of the application, at this stage to rule that prior sanction even to direct registration of a FIR is required under Section 196 of CrPC is most surprising.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja dismissed the application, filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lack of previous sanction.  The court observed that, “There is no previous sanction obtained by the complainants from the competent authority (Central government) to prosecute the respondents for the offences alleged in the complaint. Hence, in view of the settled position of law, the complaint deserves to be dismissed being not tenable in the eyes of law.”

She said the police had not raised this objection during the hearing. “Why hear arguments on merits then? Why not hold this at the threshold in February?” she asked.

Former MP said it could be seen as an attempt to save the guilty from the long hand of laws.

“This is an unfair judicial process which has resulted in excusing those who make hate speeches even where there is prima facie evidence.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.