CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its April 29, 2026 judgment that held no cognisable offence was disclosed against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma in connection with their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.
The review petition challenges the part of the judgment in which the Supreme Court, while holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not required before a Magistrate directs registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, nevertheless concluded that the speeches did not disclose any cognisable offence.
Karat had earlier challenged a Delhi High Court order affirming the refusal of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) to direct the registration of an FIR against the two BJP leaders under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The case relates to speeches delivered during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests. Karat alleged that Thakur’s slogan raised at a January 27, 2020 election rally and Verma’s remarks describing Shaheen Bagh protesters as infiltrators who would allegedly threaten public safety constituted offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with promoting enmity between groups, imputations prejudicial to national integration, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and statements conducive to public mischief.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the appeal on April 29, holding that the impugned speeches did not disclose any cognisable offence. The Court concurred with the Delhi High Court’s conclusion that the ingredients of hate speech offences were not attracted as the speeches did not specifically target any identifiable religious or other protected community.
In the review petition, Karat contended that the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It was argued that neither the trial court nor the Delhi High Court had adjudicated the merits of the hate speech allegations and had confined themselves solely to the legal question of whether prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was mandatory before ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
According to the petition, the Delhi High Court had expressly recorded that the ACMM had not examined the merits of the complaint and had clarified that its observations would not prejudice any future proceedings on the substantive allegations. However, despite partly allowing the appeal by overruling the High Court on the issue of prior sanction, the Supreme Court proceeded in paragraphs 136 to 138 of its judgment to hold that no cognisable offence was made out.
The review plea asserted that this conclusion was reached without any detailed adjudication of the factual allegations, appreciation of the evidentiary record or comprehensive arguments from the parties on the merits of the alleged hate speech.
Karat has also relied upon orders issued by the Election Commission of India in January 2020 against both leaders. The petition stated that the Election Commission had found that the impugned speeches violated the Model Code of Conduct, had the potential to aggravate existing differences and promote mutual hatred between religious communities, and consequently removed Thakur and Verma from the BJP’s list of star campaigners while imposing temporary campaign restrictions.
The petition further referred to the police status report submitted before the trial court, which concluded that no cognisable offence was disclosed on the ground that Thakur’s slogan did not target any specific community and Verma’s statements amounted to political criticism. Karat argued that the Supreme Court adopted the same conclusion without furnishing independent reasons despite the material placed before it, including video recordings of the speeches and the Election Commission’s findings.
Seeking reconsideration of the judgment, the review petition requested the Supreme Court to recall its finding that no cognisable offence was made out and to adjudicate the merits of the hate speech allegations after granting the parties a full hearing on the substantive issues.
The review petition has been filed through Advocates Sylona Mohapatra, Tara Nirula and Adit Pujari.
The post Brinda Karat seeks review of Supreme Court giving clean chit to Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma in 2020 Delhi hate speech case appeared first on India Legal.