Back
Delhi Court Seeks Police Report in Harsh Mander's Plea for Against Himanta Biswa Sarma
A Delhi court has directed the police to file a report on whether a complaint by social activist Harsh Mander seeking registration of an against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for alleged was received and what action was taken. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal of the issued the directive on Tuesday, setting the next hearing for .
The order comes in the wake of Mander's application under , urging the court to direct the police to register an against the two politicians. Mander has accused them of making inflammatory statements that could incite communal disharmony and violence, in violation of provisions of the , including those related to promoting enmity between different groups () and outraging religious feelings ().
Court's Queries to Police
In a terse order, the court asked the to clarify whether any complaint had been received from Mander against Sarma and Dubey, and whether the alleged fell within their . Crucially, the court also sought a response on whether the complaint disclosed the commission of a , and if so, whether an had been registered and action taken as per the guidelines laid down by the in .
The precise wording of the court's query was: "Whether the complaint received at the Police Station discloses commission of any (s)? If, yes whether was registered and action/ inquiry conducted as per the directions/ guidelines of the Hon'ble in ." This signals that the court is mindful of the constitutional mandate that police must register an whenever a complaint discloses a , without conducting a unless the case falls within specific exceptions.
Background of the Complaint
Harsh Mander, a well-known activist and former civil servant, has been vocal against by public figures. The current plea implicates Himanta Biswa Sarma, who has often been at the centre of political controversies for his remarks on minority communities, and Nishikant Dubey, a BJP member of parliament known for his outspoken statements. Mander argues that their speeches, made at public events and widely circulated on social media, violate the and the under , apart from being criminal in nature.
The application was filed in the , which typically handles cases related to political figures and public interest matters. The court's decision to seek a police report rather than directly ordering an indicates a cautious approach, allowing the police to first verify the facts and jurisdictional aspects.
The Lalita Kumari Framework
The reference to Lalita Kumari is legally significant. In that landmark judgment, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that registration of an is mandatory under if the information discloses a . The Court also laid down that a may be conducted only in limited cases, such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, or corruption cases, and must be completed within a short period, usually seven days. The police cannot refuse to register an merely because the allegations appear improbable or lack sufficient evidence.
By citing Lalita Kumari , the Delhi court is reminding the police of their statutory duty. The police must now submit a clear report detailing whether a complaint was given, whether the offence is cognizable, and if so, why no was lodged. This will help the court decide whether to issue a direction to register the or to treat the application as a complaint.
Possible Implications
For the legal community, this matter underscores the delicate balance between and . laws in India are often invoked in response to provocative statements by politicians, but courts are wary of over-criminalising expressions. The court's insistence on the police report indicates that it will not mechanically order an without verifying the veracity of the allegations.
If the police report finds that the speeches indeed constitute and fall within the court's , the court may direct registration of an , compelling the to act. Alternatively, if the police claim lack of jurisdiction or that no is made out, Mander may have to take the complaint forward under as a , leading to a magistrate's examination of witnesses.
What's Next?
The next hearing is scheduled for , by which time the must file its report. The police will have to address not only the factual aspects but also the legal questions raised by the court. This includes clarifying whether the alleged speeches were delivered within the jurisdiction of the or elsewhere, and whether any was conducted in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines.
Lawyers will be watching closely, as this case could set a precedent for how courts handle applications for registration of FIRs against high-profile individuals for alleged . If the court directs an , it would reaffirm that politicians are not exempt from for their statements. Conversely, if the court dismisses the plea, it might reinforce the principle that criminal law should not be used to stifle robust political debate.
Conclusion
The Delhi court's directive to the police is a procedural step that could have significant repercussions. It reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that the police act in accordance with law, and that citizens' complaints of cognizable offences are not ignored. As the matter progresses, the focus will be on whether the police provide a satisfactory explanation for their inaction, and whether the court ultimately forces the issue. For now, the ball is in the police's court, and their response on will shape the next phase of this legal battle.
