New Delhi, August 24
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order upholding denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case accusing him of making a hate speech in 2007.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana reserved the verdict after hearing petitioner Parvez Parwaz’s counsel Fuzzail Ayyubi and senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the UP Government.
Parvaz has challenged the February 22, 2018 Allahabad High Court order accepting the state’s decision to decline sanction to prosecute Chief MinisterYogiAdityanathin the case. Adityanath had made certain anti-Muslim remarks while addressing “Hindu Yuva Vahini” activists in a meeting in Gorakhpur on January 27, 2007, he alleged. He has questioned the legality of the UP Government’s May 3, 2017 decision declining sanction to prosecute him and the filing of closure report in the case.
The Supreme Court had on August 20, 2018 asked the Uttar Pradesh government to respond to Parwaz’s petition against the high court’s order.
In an affidavit filed in the top court, the Uttar Pradesh Government had defended the Allahabad High Court’s order upholding its decision to deny sanction to prosecute Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a decade-old hate speech case.
It had said that “…after analyzing complete records and in the light of the legal opinion received, the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh reached the decision that there is no justification to grant sanction for prosecution. Accordingly, the CBCID closed the matter…”
On Wednesday, Ayyubi wondered if the Chief Minister, as an executive head, could participate in the sanction process. He said the issue had not been dealt with by the high court in its order. The investigation did not inspire confidence, he submitted.
“Once a closure report is filed in the case, where is the question of sanction? It is an academic question…If there is no case, where will the question of sanction come from?” the CJI commented.
On behalf of the state of UP, Rohatgi argued that nothing survived in the case as CSFL had stated that the CD in question – containing the alleged hate speech recording—was tampered and fake and there was a closure report to that effect which was accepted by the trial court.
The Uttar Pradesh Principal Home Secretary had in May 2017 opined that the draft probe report of the CBCID did not have sufficient evidence to prosecuteAdityanath. Also, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory had concluded that the CD provided by the complainant againstAdityanathand four others was tampered with, the official had said while declining sanction to prosecute those named in the complaint.
The petitioner had contended that the decision was vitiated as the Home Department was under the chief minister who could not be a “judge in his own cause.” He alleged the video-recording of the alleged speech was available on YouTube.
However, the UP Government defended the denial of sanction before the top court. “…the order of the sanctioning authority was based upon opinion received by Law Department stating that in the absence of evidence there is no justification to grant sanction for prosecution…the Hon’ble High Court has passed a well-reasoned order,” it said, adding there was no illegality involved in the process.