Key Points

The Supreme Court on 29 April 2026 dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over alleged hate speeches made against CAA-NRC protestors in January 2020. The court held that no cognisable offence could be made out.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the findings of the Delhi High Court, which had earlier declined to intervene in the matter.

“Upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record, including the alleged speeches, the status report dated February 26, 2020 submitted before the trial court, and the reasons recorded by the courts below, we are in agreement with the conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out,” the Bench said in its order.

The case arose from a plea filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari, who had alleged that the speeches delivered by the two leaders while campaigning for the 2020 Delhi Assembly Election were inflammatory and capable of inciting communal hostility during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

The petition referred to a rally on 27 January 2020, where Thakur led a slogan calling for violence – “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko.” The following day, Verma warned that if protesters at Shaheen Bagh were not removed they would “enter houses and rape and kill people.” The complainants had sought registration of FIRs under provisions relating to promoting enmity and outraging religious sentiments.

However, both the trial court and the Delhi High Court had refused to direct registration of FIRs. The High Court had held that the statements were “not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder.”

See Also: “Highly Derogatory, Inflammatory and Communal Tweets”: Rana Ayyub’s Tweets Under Scrutiny as Delhi High Court Orders Responses from Centre, X, Police

The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion on merits, reiterating that the threshold for criminal prosecution was not met. It noted that while the remarks were controversial, they did not disclose incitement to violence or public disorder sufficient to constitute a criminal offence.

At the same time, the court disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the lower courts on the issue of prior sanction. Both the trial court and the High Court had held that sanction from the competent authority was required before directing registration of an FIR against public functionaries. Clarifying the legal position, the Supreme Court held that such sanction is not required at the stage of directing investigation.

“The scheme of CrPC does not contemplate any embargo on the direction for registration of an FIR or the conduct of investigation at the pre-cognizance stage,” the Bench observed, clarifying the legal position. “To hold otherwise would amount to introducing a restriction not envisaged by the legislature.”

It further explained that criminal procedure follows a defined sequence. “The process of criminal law is sequential: information of a cognizable offence must first be received; an FIR must then be registered; investigation must follow; a report under Section 173 of CrPC must thereafter be submitted; and it is only at that stage that the question of taking cognizance arises,” the court said.

The bench emphasised that police authorities do not have discretion in registering FIRs when a cognisable offence is disclosed. “Failure on the part of the authorities to perform their statutory duties at the threshold stage not only defeats the legislative intent but also places the ordinary citizen in a position of vulnerability against institutional inaction,” the bench noted.

The judgment forms part of a broader set of cases relating to alleged hate speech and election rhetoric. In a separate case heard on the same day, the court noted that existing legal provisions are sufficient to address such issues and did not find any need for expanding criminal liability in the matter of hate speeches.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: