SC rejects review plea over FIR against Anurag Thakur in ‘goli maro’ case

The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat seeking reconsideration of its earlier decision refusing to order the registration of an FIR against BJP MP Anurag Thakur over his alleged "goli maro" slogan during the 2020 anti-CAA protests.

A Bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that there was no error in its previous judgment warranting a review. The order, passed on 29 July, also rejected Karat's request for the matter to be heard in open court.

The Bench said it had examined the review petition and the grounds advanced in support of it but found no apparent error in its earlier ruling that would justify reconsideration. It also disposed of all pending applications connected with the case.

In its judgment delivered on 29 April, the Supreme Court had upheld the refusal to direct registration of an FIR against Thakur, while disagreeing with the legal reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court and the trial court.

The apex court had clarified that prior government sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required for directing the registration of an FIR or ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. It said such sanction becomes necessary only at the stage when a court takes cognisance of an offence.

The court observed that making the registration of an FIR conditional upon prior sanction would be inconsistent with the statutory framework governing criminal investigations.

However, after independently examining the material placed on record, including the speeches in question and the police status report, the Supreme Court concluded that no cognisable offence was disclosed and upheld the decision not to order an FIR.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Brinda Karat against Anurag Thakur and former BJP MP Pravesh Verma over alleged hate speeches made during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in January 2020.

After Delhi Police did not register a case, Karat approached the trial court seeking a direction for an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. The trial court declined the request, holding that prior sanction was required, a view later endorsed by the Delhi High Court before the matter reached the Supreme Court.

With IANS inputs