Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma Clean Chit

• The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over inflammatory remarks made during an election rally in January 2020.
• The Court found no ground to revisit its earlier judgment, stating that it did not find any error or apparent mistake in the order impugned.
• This decision sets a precedent that may impact future cases involving politicians and their speeches under criminal law.

We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of a review petition against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma has significant implications for the intersection of politics and law in India. The case revolves around inflammatory remarks made by Thakur during an election rally in January 2020, where he led a call-and-response slogan that included the phrase 'goli maaro saalon ko' (shoot the traitors). This incident sparked widespread protests and demonstrations against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which were underway at Shaheen Bagh. The CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat sought the registration of criminal cases against Thakur and Verma, arguing that their remarks constituted a cognizable offence.

The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the review petition is not surprising, given its earlier judgment in April 29. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta had already rejected Karat's application seeking an open court hearing of the review petition. The Court found no ground to revisit its earlier decision, stating that it did not find any error or apparent mistake in the order impugned. This dismissal has far-reaching implications for future cases where politicians' speeches are challenged under criminal law.

The Supreme Court's ruling sets a precedent that may impact future cases involving politicians and their speeches. The Court's decision to dismiss the review petition suggests that it will be cautious in revisiting its earlier judgments, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like politics and law. This precedent may have significant implications for lawyers and litigants who seek to challenge politicians' speeches under criminal law. As the Indian legal system continues to grapple with the intersection of politics and law, this decision is likely to be closely watched by lawyers and scholars alike.

Lawyers should watch for this precedent, which may impact future cases where politicians' speeches are challenged under criminal law.

Source: Original reporting via The Hindu