New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that upheld the Allahabad High Court order refusing to sanction the prosecution of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in the 2007 ‘hate speech’ case. The government’s decision was upheld.
A bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said it was not inclined to look into the issue. However, the bench left open the legal question raised in the petition – with regard to whether the sanction could be denied – open and a suitable matter to be decided.
The verdict comes on the day of CJI Ramana’s retirement. On Wednesday, his bench had reserved order on a four-year-old appeal filed by petitioner Parvez Parwaz, questioning the February 2018 judgment of the Allahabad High Court granting sanction to prosecute the Uttar Pradesh chief minister. His petition was rejected.
The High Court’s order came on Parwaz’s plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s May 30, 2017 decision not granting sanction to prosecute the accused in the case. Parwaz had alleged that Yogi Adityanath had made anti-Muslim indecent remarks while addressing ‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’ workers at a meeting in Gorakhpur on January 27, 2007. The state has already filed a closure report in the matter.
Appearing for Parwaz, Advocate Fuzail Ayyubi had argued that the HC had erred in not considering whether “the State shall make an order under the Code of Criminal Procedure (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 the sanction to prosecute under section 196 of CrPC.
Ayubi argued that the court should look into the question of whether the incumbent Chief Minister of UP, against whom the charges have been leveled, can participate in the sanction process. Furthermore, the second issue pertains to the nature of the investigation, which Ayubi said, did not inspire confidence as it was carried out in a non-transparent manner.
However, during the hearing, CJI Raman made oral remarks that once the state has filed the closure report, the question of sanction does not arise. “It is an academic question,” he had remarked.
But Ayobi insisted that a prima facie case was made out because there was a DVD of the speech as well as a Forensic Lab (FSL) report to confirm who gave it. Ayubi told the bench that permission was sought to prosecute only after a prima facie case was made out.
Uttar Pradesh defended its decision to deny the approval. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state, claimed that nothing was left in the case as the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFLS) had held that the CD which contained the recording of the alleged hate speech was tampered and fake.
Rohatgi said the closure report has been accepted. Moreover, the matter did not go to the Chief Minister, he argued. The dispute matters are taken up to the Chief Minister, only then there is a difference of opinion between the Law Department and the Home Department.
Read also: NV Ramana: Chief Justice of India who didn’t like shouting in court