Breaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Refusal Of Sanction To Prosecute CM Yogi Adityanath In 2007 Hate Speech Case

The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea challenging denial of sanction to prosecute Chief Minister Yogi Aditynath in a case of 2007 relating to alleged hate speech.

The Judgment was passed in a plea assailing a decision of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the order of the Uttar Pradesh Government refusing to grant sanctions to prosecute Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in relation to a 2007 hate speech case, where a closure report had been filed subsiquently.

The Bench comprising of Chief Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C. T. Ravikumar read from the Judgment that the Court does not think that it is necessary to go into the issue of grant sanction and that the said question is being left open to be decided in future. 

The petitioner in the matter, Parvez Parwaz, had challenged the decision of the UP Government not to grant sanction to prosecute Yogi Adityanath on the ground that he had been elected and had become the Chief Minister of the State and would have been involved in the process of granting sanction. The High Court of Allahabad had however dismissed the plea of the petitioner.

The petitioner had alleged that Yogi Adityanath had made anti-Muslim remarks in his address before the activists of Hindu Yuva Vahini in a meeting held on January 27, 2007.

The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Advocate Fuzail Ayyubi raised the question of whether the state can pass an order under Section 196 of CrPC regarding a proposed accused who in the meantime gets elected to the post of the Chief Minister. Ayyubi also apprised the court that this argument was also raised before the Allahabad High Court but it was not considered. Chief Justice Ramana had observed that this issue raised by the petitioner was an academic one.

The Court asked, once a closure report is filed in the case where is the question of sanction? Ayyubi replied that a case was made but when the sanction was sought and yet the Law Department and the Home Department declined it.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the State of UP stated that nothing remained in the matter as the CSFL had itself stated that the CD which has the recording of the Hate Speech was tampered with and a closure report was also filed in the matter which was accepted. Replying to the question raised by Ayyubi, Rohatgi replied that the matter was to go to the Chief Minister only if Law Department and Home Department had any dispute, but in this case, the departments were ad idem.