 leader Brinda Karat , BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma.webp)
The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat seeking reconsideration of its earlier judgment that found no cognisable offence against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over speeches delivered during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.
The review petition was decided in chambers after the Court had earlier declined Karat's request for an open court hearing. The Bench concluded that there was no error in its April 29 judgment that required reconsideration.
Background of the Case
The case arose from speeches delivered during the Delhi Assembly election campaign in January 2020, at a time when protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), including the Shaheen Bagh demonstrations, were ongoing.
Brinda Karat alleged that on January 27, 2020, BJP leader Anurag Thakur, while addressing an election rally in Rithala, led the crowd in the slogan, "Desh ke gaddaron ko… goli maaro saalon ko." She contended that the slogan attracted provisions relating to promoting enmity and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
She also referred to remarks allegedly made by Parvesh Verma on January 28, 2020, in which he warned that the Shaheen Bagh protesters would eventually "enter houses and rape and kill people" if they were not stopped. According to Karat, these statements also warranted criminal investigation.
After Delhi Police declined to register an FIR, Karat approached the trial court seeking directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for registration of a criminal case. The trial court refused the request, holding that prior sanction was required before proceeding. That decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court, prompting Karat to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
In its April 29 judgment, the Supreme Court clarified an important legal point by holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required at the pre-cognisance stage when a Magistrate considers directing an investigation.
However, after independently examining the speeches, the Court concluded that they did not disclose a cognisable offence warranting registration of an FIR.
Karat sought a review, arguing that the Court should not have decided the merits of the allegations when the issue before it primarily concerned the requirement of prior sanction.
Rejecting the plea, the Bench observed:
"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 Court found no reason to reopen its earlier findings.
Decision
With the dismissal of the review petition, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its April 29 ruling that no cognisable offence was disclosed by the speeches challenged by Brinda Karat.
The earlier judgment, including its findings on both the sanction issue and the absence of grounds for directing registration of an FIR, remains in force.
Case Details
Case Title: Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: Review Petition (Civil) No. 416 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
