• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, January 30, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Delhi High Court dismissed a plea against Anurag Thakur, and Parvesh Verma and held that Mass Leaders must conduct themselves with the utmost integrity

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
June 14, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
0
Delhi High Court dismissed a plea against Anurag Thakur, and Parvesh Verma and held that Mass Leaders must conduct themselves with the utmost integrity

Delhi High Court dismissed a plea against Anurag Thakur, and Parvesh Verma and held that Mass Leaders must conduct themselves with the utmost integrity

0
SHARES
5
VIEWS

While rejecting a petition filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari seeking the registration of a first information report (FIR) against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for alleged hate speech, the Delhi High Court emphasised that mass leaders who hold high public offices must conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and responsibility.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh began his ruling with a shloka (verse) from the Bhagwada Gita, which states, “Whatever deed a leader performs, common persons follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his conduct, his subjects pursue.”

“‘With great power comes great responsibilities —goes another popular quote’,”

The Court Added

“The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society.”

The Court express its opinion on conduct of the role of leaders occupying high offices.

The Court, on the other hand, dismissed the argument, holding that High Courts should not use their extraordinary writ power under Article 226 of the Constitution on a regular basis if a more effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.

READ ALSO

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

The ruling came in response to Karat and Tiwari’s appeal of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court order dismissing their appeal.

“The High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of FIRs or praying for a proper investigation. If the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, it will open pandora’s box and would crumble the already overtaxed system. Therefore, the alternate remedies wherever available must be exhausted, save in exceptional circumstances where the urgent intervention of this Court is required in the interest of justice, before approaching this Court,”

The Court Stated in it’s order

The High Court ruled that, under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the government must provide adequate penalties when the leaders are accused of crimes.

Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with prosecution for crimes against the state and criminal conspiracy to commit such crimes, as well as the requirement of government sanction.

Following that, Justice Singh looked at numerous precedents, legal provisions, and the circumstances surrounding the plea, which had challenged a Magisterial Court ruling denying an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking the registration of a FIR against the leaders.

It was noted that the CrPC provided a “alternative” and “effective” remedy that had to be used before claiming the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

“Thirdly, in the instant case, the ACMM has rightly decided the application before it. The provisions of Section 156(3) for directing investigation qua offences mentioned in Section 196 of the Code cannot be exercised by the Court without sanction. There is no prima facie irregularity that is apparent upon a perusal of the impugned order. Fourthly, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the Court and no case is made out warranting the intervention of this Court at this stage,”

The Court Stated

The charges against the two politicians included inciting hatred between different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.; imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration; deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs; uttering, words, etc. with the deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person; intentional insulting of religious feelings of any person; intentional insulating of religious feelings of any person; intentional

The High Court clarified that, while the petition of the left leaders was maintainable, it did not warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction because no fundamental or legal rights had been violated that would have required the Court’s intervention in the case of the right to report a cognisable offence.

According to the High Court, there was no “gross illegality” in the proceedings before the ACMM.

“Section 156(3) remedy had been availed of wherein the ACMM after having taken note of the status report filed by the investigating agency and applying its judicial mind to the complaint dismissed the same. Third, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioners have failed to follow the prescribed mechanism under the Code,”

The Court Held

The court noted that each institution has a purpose to serve in a democratic and constitutional framework guided by the rule of law while discussing the purpose of institutions. The mission of investigating agencies, such as the police, was declared to be sui generis, or one-of-a-kind.

Petitioners’ advocate are Tara Narula, Adit S Pujari, Aparajita Sinha, and Chaitanya Sundriyal.

Respondents are Special Public Prosecutors Amit Mahajan and Rajat Nair, as well as Advocates Dhruv Pande and Kritagya Kumar Kait.

Read Order

Brinda_Karat___Anr_v__State___AnrDownload
Tags: Anurag ThakurBJPBrinda Karatdelhi high courthate speechJustice Chandra Dhari SinghSection 196 crpc
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Bombay high court
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

January 11, 2023
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

January 11, 2023
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

January 11, 2023
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

January 11, 2023
The Uttarakhand High Court's order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.
News

The Uttarakhand High Court’s order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.

January 5, 2023
Madras-HC-uapa
News

Can the blind guide the blind? The Madras High Court orders the TN Judicial Academy to provide judges with UAPA and remand training.

December 30, 2022
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements legal news madras high court murder Nawab Malik patna high court pil pocso act public interest litigation Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Bombay high court
News

Advocate Neela Gokhale was today recommended for promotion as judge of the Bombay High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium.

Read more

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed the nomination of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts.

Read more

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to confirm the appointment of attorney Nagendra Ramachandra Naik as a Karnataka High...

Read more

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended that two judicial officers be appointed as judges of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In