The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat challenging its earlier judgment that found no cognizable offence against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over speeches delivered during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, which considered the review petition in chambers, found no ground to reconsider its earlier decision. The Court observed that there was no error, much less an apparent error, warranting review of the impugned judgment. The request for an open-court hearing had also been declined.
Karat had sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s April 29, 2026 judgment, which had partly allowed her challenge to a Delhi High Court decision concerning her plea for registration of an FIR against the two BJP leaders.
The original proceedings arose from allegations concerning speeches made by Thakur and Verma during campaigning in the run-up to the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, against the backdrop of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act at Shaheen Bagh.
Karat had alleged that Thakur’s speech at a January 2020 election rally, as well as remarks attributed to Verma concerning the Shaheen Bagh protesters, disclosed offences under provisions including Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code.
She had approached the courts after a Magistrate declined to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Delhi High Court subsequently upheld the Magistrate’s decision, prompting Karat to move the Supreme Court.
While examining the matter in April, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court on one aspect of the legal question. It held that prior governmental sanction under Section 196 CrPC was not a prerequisite for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
However, despite differing from the High Court on the sanction issue, the Supreme Court concurred with the ultimate conclusion that the material placed before the courts did not disclose a cognizable offence in the alleged speeches.
The Court had agreed with the view that the statements in question were not directed against any particular religious community and did not demonstrate the ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged hate-speech offences.
Karat’s subsequent review petition principally challenged this aspect of the April judgment. She contended that the Supreme Court had entered into the merits of the allegations even though the proceedings before the lower courts had not involved a substantive adjudication on whether the speeches constituted cognizable offences.
According to the review plea, the Delhi High Court had confined its consideration to the question of whether prior sanction was necessary before a Magistrate could order an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Karat argued that the High Court had specifically recorded that the Magistrate had not examined the merits of the allegations.
The petition further contended that the Supreme Court’s finding that no cognizable offence was disclosed was therefore an apparent error warranting review. Karat sought recall of that finding and a fresh adjudication of the allegations after hearing the parties on their merits.
The review plea also relied upon orders passed by the Election Commission of India during the 2020 election campaign. Karat pointed out that the poll panel had taken action against both leaders over their respective statements, including removing them from the BJP’s list of star campaigners and imposing restrictions on their campaigning.
She also referred to material such as video recordings and the police status report placed before the trial court, arguing that the Supreme Court ought not to have conclusively determined the absence of a cognizable offence without a detailed examination of the allegations.
The Supreme Court, however, has now declined to revisit its April judgment, finding no apparent error warranting exercise of its review jurisdiction.
The latest order thus leaves intact the Supreme Court’s finding that the material concerning the speeches of Thakur and Verma did not disclose a cognizable offence warranting registration of an FIR in the case.
The post Supreme Court dismisses Brinda Karat review plea against clean chit to Anurag Thakur,Parvesh Verma in hate speech case appeared first on India Legal.