The Supreme Court disposed of several petitions concerning alleged hate speech incidents, including the “Goli Maaro” speech, Dharam Sansad events, Tablighi-Jamaat coverage, “UPSC Jihad” show and Nitesh Rane’s Malwani speech, while clarifying that prior sanction is not needed for a Magistrate to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Supreme Court recently delivered its judgment in a long-pending batch of petitions concerning alleged hate speech offences.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed several writ petitions that sought directions on hate speeches and hate offences. The Court also disposed of special leave petitions and contempt petitions linked to its earlier order on suo motu registration of FIRs.
The Court refused to issue a continuing mandamus to monitor compliance with its earlier directions. However, it clarified an important legal point. It held that a Magistrate does not need prior sanction to order registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Earlier, the Court had de-tagged the 2021 case relating to a Muslim cleric in Noida from the batch. In the judgment, the Court also directed that three more cases would remain pending for responses from the concerned authorities.
Brinda Karat’s Plea Against Anurag Thakur And Parvesh Verma
One of the matters concerned a plea filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat. She had sought action over alleged hate speeches made in 2020 by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma.
The Supreme Court held that the material did not disclose any cognizable offence for registration of an FIR. It approved the High Court’s finding that the speeches were not directed at any specific community. The Court also noted that the speeches did not create public disorder.
Karat’s plea referred to several speeches by the two political leaders. This included Anurag Thakur’s 2020 rally speech, where he raised the slogan, “desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko.”
The plea also referred to a speech by Parvesh Verma during BJP’s 2020 campaign. It also relied on an interview given by him to the media.
According to the plea, Verma had threatened the use of force to remove protesters from Shaheen Bagh during the Citizenship Amendment Act protests. The plea also alleged that the speeches promoted hatred against Muslims by portraying them as invaders.
After examining the record, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order on merits.
However, the Court disagreed with the High Court on one legal issue. It held that prior sanction was not required before a Magistrate could direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Even so, the Supreme Court held that the speeches and other material did not make out any cognizable offence against the BJP leaders.
PIL Seeking SIT Probe Into Dharam Sansad Speeches Dismissed
The Supreme Court also dismissed a public interest litigation filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, former judge of the Patna High Court.
The petition sought an investigation by a Special Investigation Team into alleged anti-Muslim hate speeches. These speeches were alleged to have been made during the Dharam Sansad and Hindu Yuva Vahini meetings held at Haridwar and Delhi in December 2021.
The petitioners alleged that some speakers had called for genocide of members of the Muslim community.
The persons named included Yati Narsinghanand Giri, Premanand Maharaj, Sudarshan News owner Suresh Chavhanke, Sadhvi Annapoorna alias Pooja Shakun Pandey, and others.
Apart from an SIT probe, the petitioners sought directions to ensure compliance with the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment on hate crimes. They also asked the Court to define the scope of “duty of care in investigations” or the tort of negligent investigations causing harm.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It noted that the CrPC and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provide a complete mechanism to set criminal law in motion.
The Court said the grievance did not arise from the absence of law. Instead, the grievance related to alleged gaps in enforcement. Therefore, the Bench held that such a plea did not justify the Court taking over a legislative role.
Court Points To Remedies For FIR Registration
The Supreme Court observed that police must register an FIR when the facts disclose a cognizable offence.
At the same time, the Court noted that the law provides remedies if police refuse to register an FIR.
An aggrieved person may first approach the concerned Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, the person may approach the Magistrate. The person may also file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
Further, the Court noted that constitutional courts retain supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
In view of these remedies, the Court found no reason to issue the directions sought by the petitioners.
Tablighi-Jamaat Coverage And “Corona Jihad” Petitions Closed
The Supreme Court also dismissed two writ petitions filed in 2020 over alleged vilification of Muslims after the Tablighi-Jamaat meeting at Markaz Nizamuddin.
The petitioners had sought directions to stop fake and communally biased reports that allegedly targeted Muslims.
They also sought action against persons who committed violent acts against Muslims. In addition, they sought protection for members of the community after alleged reckless vilification by the media.
The Supreme Court rejected the petitions after six years and found no reason to interfere.
Petition Over Islamophobic Twitter Trends Dismissed
The Court also dismissed a case concerning alleged Islamophobic posts on social media.
The petitioner had sought action against the alleged miscreants as well as Twitter. He had first approached the Telangana High Court against trends such as IslamicCoronavirusJihad and TablighiJamat on Twitter.
He also sought a direction to the Union Government to stop social media platforms from carrying Islamophobic posts or messages.
The High Court had held that the grievance regarding Twitter trends had worked itself out. On the prayer against the Centre, the High Court said the petitioner could seek appropriate orders from the Supreme Court.
On another issue, the High Court directed the Union Government to consider the averments and take steps in accordance with law, if deemed necessary.
The petitioner challenged the order before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. It held that the High Court had adequately addressed the grievances.
The Court further observed that no further adjudication was required, even if some concerns remained.
Plea Against “UPSC Jihad” Show Dismissed
Another dismissed writ petition concerned Bindas Bol, a show hosted by Suresh Chavhanke, Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan News.
The petition challenged the show for allegedly communalising the entry of Muslims into civil services.
The controversy related to the Zakat Foundation. Sudarshan News had accused the foundation of receiving foreign funds from organisations linked to terror. The show carried the tagline “UPSC Jihad.”
In September 2020, the Supreme Court had passed an interim order restraining the channel from telecasting the remaining episodes.
At that stage, a Bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, had observed that the programme appeared to vilify the Muslim community. The Bench had also remarked that a constitutional court could not permit the vilification of any community in a plural society.
In the recent judgment, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found no ground to interfere or issue directions against the programme.
Plea Against Nitesh Rane’s Malwani Speech Dismissed
The Supreme Court also dismissed a 2024 writ petition filed by social activist Jameel Mohammad Merchant.
The petition sought registration of an FIR against BJP leader Nitesh Rane, son of former Union Minister and former Chief Minister Narayan Rane.
The case related to a speech made during an event organised by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Malwani, Mumbai, on March 3, 2024.
The petitioner alleged that Rane made inflammatory remarks against the Muslim community and advocated violence.
The plea also alleged that Rane had made repeated hate speeches against Muslims in 2024. It sought directions to restrain him from making inflammatory speeches in Malwani, Malad West. It also sought directions to prevent rallies that could disturb peace in the area.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It again held that the CrPC and BNSS provide a comprehensive mechanism for initiating criminal law remedies.
The Court added that police must register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. However, if police fail to act, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police, the Magistrate, or file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere.
Contempt Petitions Also Closed
The Supreme Court also closed two contempt petitions after considering the response of the authorities. The authorities stated that FIRs had been registered in relation to the alleged incidents.
The Court closed two other contempt petitions as well. Those petitions complained of non-registration of suo motu FIRs.
However, the Court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for contempt. It noted that the petitioners had not even approached the authorities with complaints about the alleged incidents.
The Court said it would be inappropriate to infer disobedience of its directions in such circumstances. It also refused to presume hesitation on the part of the authorities without material placed before them.
Case Details
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India and connected cases
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 943/2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Key Provisions: Section 156(3), CrPC; Section 200, CrPC; Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
