New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday declined to entertain a petition assailing the Allahabad High Court order upholding Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to deny sanction to prosecute its Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a 2007 ‘hate speech’ case.
A bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana said it was not inclined to look into the issue. However, the bench left the legal question raised in the petition – related to whether sanction could have been denied – open and to be decided in an appropriate case.
The judgment comes on the day of CJI Ramana’s retirement. On Wednesday, his bench had reserved orders on the four-year-old appeal that was filed by petitioner Parvez Parwaz questioning the Allahabad High Court’s February 2018 judgment discarding his plea to grant sanction to prosecute the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister.
The High Court order came on Parwaz’s petition challenging Uttar Pradesh government’s decision taken on 30 May 2017, declining sanction to prosecute the accused in the case. Parwaz had alleged that Yogi Adityanath made anti-Muslim hate remarks while addressing ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’ activists in a meeting in Gorakhpur on 27 January 2007. The state has already filed a closure report in the case.
Appearing for Parwaz, Advocate Fuzzail Ayyubi had contended that HC had erred in not considering whether the “state could pass an order under the criminal procedure code (CrPc) in respect of a proposed accused in a criminal case who gets elected as the chief minister and is the executive head.” The state had passed its order against sanction to prosecute under Section 196 of CrPc.
Ayyubi argued that the court should look into the question of whether the current Chief Minister of UP, against whom the allegations have been made, could participate in the sanction process. Apart from this, the other issue concerned the nature of investigation, which Ayyubi said did not inspire confidence because it was carried out in a non-transparent way.
However, during the hearing, CJI Ramana made oral observations that once the state has filed a closure report, the question of sanction does not arise. “It is an academic question,” he had remarked.
But Ayyubi asserted that prima facie a case was made out as there was a DVD of the speech as well as the Forensic lab (FSL) report to confirm who delivered it. Sanction to prosecute was sought only after it was opined that a prima facie case is made out, Ayyubi told the bench.
Uttar Pradesh defended its decision to deny the sanction. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state, claimed nothing remained in the case as Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFLS) had stated that the CD in question, which had the recording of the alleged hate speech, was tampered and fake.
The closure report, Rohatgi added, had been accepted. Moreover, the matter did not go to the chief minister, he argued. Instances of dispute are taken to the chief minister, only when there is a difference of opinion between the Law Department and Home Department
Also read: NV Ramana: The Chief Justice of India who didn’t like shouting in court