Yogi Adityanath hate speech: Petitioner can’t be left without remedy, says Allahabad High Courthttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/yogi-adityanath-hate-speech-petitioner-cant-be-left-without-remedy-says-allahabad-high-court-4772149/

Yogi Adityanath hate speech: Petitioner can’t be left without remedy, says Allahabad High Court

A K Mishra, additional advocate general representing UP government, claimed the petitioners did not have any new ground or factual foundation to move an amendment plea, since the probe was over and the chargesheet filed.

yogi adityanath, ayodhya case, lord ram, adityanath on ram, yogi in lord ram, samajwadi party, uttar pradesh government, indian express news, india news
UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath (File)

OBSERVING THAT the petitioner in the 2007 Yogi Adityanath hate speech case “cannot be left remedy-less”, the Allahabad High Court on Friday asked the UP government what legal remedy was the petitioners left with when the state has refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the UP CM — the prime accused in the case. The bench made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Parvez Parwaz, who, along with others, had got FIRs lodged against Adityanath and four others in 2008 for inciting communal violence in Gorakhpur in 2007.

A K Mishra, additional advocate general representing UP government, claimed the petitioners did not have any new ground or factual foundation to move an amendment plea, since the probe was over and the chargesheet filed. Requesting the court to reject the plea, he added: “They (petitioners) should let law take its own course… They have an alternative remedy under Section 190 of the CrPc. And they can also file a protest petition,” Mishra told the court. Section 190 refers to a magistrate having the power to take cognizance of any complaint or a police report or any piece of information about an offence.

The bench — comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Akhilesh Chandra Sharma — interjected, saying that Section 190 was regulated by Section 196 of the CrPc, which makes the granting of sanction by the state government a prerequisite for the magistrate to take cognizance of an offence and initiate trial. “In a case where… the sanction order is not there, can the magistrate proceed?” Justice Murari asked. When Mishra did not have an answer, the bench said: “If the magistrate cannot proceed… where will the petitioners go? Nobody can be left remedy-less.” The next hearing is slated on July 31.