SC rejects plea against denial to sanction Adityanath’s prosecution in alleged hate speech case

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea against denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in an alleged hate speech case of year 2007, saying the forensic examination of the CD which formed the basis of the prosecution was found to be tampered with as per the report of October 13, 2014. 

A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and C T Ravikumar also pointed out that the investigation was closed by filing of the final report on May 6, 2017 but a protest petition filed before the trial court was already pending.

“In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to go into the contentions raised by both sides on the issue of denial of sanction for prosecution and the legal pleas sought to be raised in relation to the said issue,” the bench said.

The court rejected the petition, filed by Parvez Parwaz and another person, against the Allahabad High Court’s order of February 22, 2018. The petition had asked for fair investigation into the alleged hate speech by Adityanath, when he was a Member of Parliament, which reportedly caused the 2007 Gorakhpur riots.

The High Court had not found any procedural irregularity in the investigation of the case.

Advocate Fuzail A Ayyubi, appearing for the petitioners, contended that Adityanath was an MP when he had made the hate speech. Later on, he became the chief minister and thereby, the executive head of the state. In such a situation, Ayyubi argued that the Governor of the state was empowered to consider granting sanction in terms of the “rules of business”. The lawyer claimed that the High Court had failed to consider this issue in an appropriate manner.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that nothing survived in the matter as a closure report had already been filed. The CD, allegedly containing the hate speech, was found to be tampered with, he added.

“Having considered the material placed on record, we are in agreement that the subsequent events have rendered the present appeal into a purely academic exercise,” the bench said, leaving the legal questions on the issue of sanction open to be considered in an appropriate case in future.