‘Go to SC and seek relief’: HC advises petitioners seeking probe into ‘hate speeches’ by politicians during 2020 riots

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for AIMIM leader Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq, informed the bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain that he is seeking an investigation independent of the Delhi Police, with an SIT comprising officers from outside the state.

“Prayer for granting officers outside the state (to probe) can’t be a prayer under CrPC section 156(3) (where a magistrate can order for registration of FIR in a cognisable offence to the police)… I went to SC (earlier), but SC said you go back here (to Delhi HC) and (get it) expedited.. I wanted it to be heard in the SC,” said Gonsalves.

In a 2021 plea before the Supreme Court seeking its intervention, it was flagged that no progress has been made in petitions filed in the Delhi HC — for action against hate speeches — despite the SC directing the HC to decide the petition “expeditiously two years ago”.

In its December 2021 order, the SC had refused to interfere but requested the Delhi HC to dispose of the petition “expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today”.

Citing “judicial discipline”, Justice Chaudhary orally suggested to the petitioners: “You went to SC at the very initial stage, at that stage SC sent you to HC… In the present circumstances,  what would be advisable is you go to SC and ask for the relief… this is what we are putting to you… Because you can be impleaded there and argue… this is what is coming to our mind.”

In 2020, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat had moved the magistrate court seeking action against then BJP minister Anurag Thakur and then BJP Lok Sabha MP Parvesh verma for inciting communal enmity through hate speeches.

The magistrate court had dismissed the application in August 2020. This was challenged before the Delhi HC, which had upheld the magistrate court’s order in June 2022.

The appeal against the HC’s dismissal is pending before the SC at present, where the High Court has now suggested that the petitioners can seek to be impleaded as parties.

While Gonsalves argued that the prayers are different in his plea vis-a-vis Karat’s, Justice Chaudhary orally suggested, “These are PILs, there can’t be different orders passed for the same set of facts… they are pending before SC, so then should we entertain a PIL here?… Judicial discipline is stopping us, putting a caveat on us, should we be passing orders when a particular path has been taken or should we go into the merit?”

Gonsalves argued that his case is against the Delhi Police for having “colluded”.

The court directed that the application filed under CrPC Section 156 (3) before the magistrate court in 2020, order passed by the magistrate, order of the Delhi HC as well as details of any order passed by SC be brought on the Delhi HC’s record.

The court will hear the matter next on December 11.