Supreme Court rejects review plea against relief to BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma in hate speech case

Published 3 August 2026 · local

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking a review of its earlier decision granting relief to former Union Minister Anurag Thakur and Delhi Deputy

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking a review of its earlier decision granting relief to former Union Minister Anurag Thakur and Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma in a complaint accusing them of making hate speeches against those protesting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in Delhi in 2020. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the review petition filed by Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) leader Brinda Karat and her party colleague K.M. Tiwari against the court’s April 29, 2026 order, which had declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s findings in the case. “We have gone through the review petition as well as the grounds in support thereof. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration,” the Bench said in its July 29, 2026 order. Also Read | Hate speech: No cognisable offence made out against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, says Supreme Court In its April 29 order, the Bench had concluded that the allegations did not make out a cognisable offence after considering the speeches in question and the conclusions reached by the courts below.

Karat and Mr. Tiwari had approached the apex court after the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the dismissal of their complaint against the two BJP leaders. On June 13, 2022, the High Court had rejected their pleas, observing that “the statements were not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder”. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh had found no prima facie infirmity in the trial court’s order and held that the petitioners had failed to make out a case warranting interference. The petitioners had initially approached the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Station House Officer of Parliament Street police station, seeking the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against the two BJP leaders. After the police declined to register an FIR, they approached the Rouse Avenue Court seeking a direction for the registration of a case. The trial court had dismissed their complaint on August 26, 2020, holding that it was not maintainable in the absence of prior sanction from the competent authority.

The petitioners had alleged that Mr. Thakur and Mr. Verma had attempted to incite people, as a result of which three incidents of firing took place at two different protest sites in Delhi. The High Court subsequently upheld the trial court’s decision, including its finding on the requirement of prior sanction. Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requires prior sanction of the appropriate government before a court can take cognisance of certain specified offences, including those relating to promoting enmity between different groups. In its April order, the apex court had, however, partly allowed Ms. Karat’s plea, disagreeing with the reasoning adopted by the courts below on the requirement of prior sanction. It held that prior sanction was not required at the pre-cognisance stage for a magistrate to order an investigation into the offences alleged against Mr. Thakur and Mr. Verma. The requirement of sanction, it clarified, would arise only at the stage when the magistrate takes cognisance of the alleged offences.