Point of Law: Magistrate cannot act as a mere 'Post Office' in forwarding such a complaint for investigation, meaning thereby that direction by Magistrate for investigation under S.156(3) should not be issued as a matter of routine or passed in a mechanical manner, without application of judicial mind.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

^^;|nkpjfr Js"BlfÙknsojks tuA

l ;Rçek.ka dqjfqyksdlfnuqfofrAA**

1. The shloka from Bhagwad Gita succinctly states - whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects. “With great power comes great responsibilities” - goes another popular quote. 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.

2. Hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos, and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution and is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under Article 51-A (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (i), (j) of the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.

3. The instant petition arises out of the impugned order of dismissal of Application of Petitioners under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) dated 26.08.2020 passed in Ct. Case No. 04/2020 titled Brinda Karat & Anr. v. State, by the Court of the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (I), Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ACMM”). By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:

a. Pass a Writ of Certiorari setting aside/quashing Order dated 26.08.2020 passed in Brinda Karat & Anr. v. State, Ct. Cas. No. 04/2020, by the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (I), Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi; and

b. Without prejudice to Prayer (i), exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 read with S.483 CrPC directing expeditious disposal of Applications under Section 156(3) CrPC and direct that technical objections and maintainability be decided at the threshold to avoid prejudice to the Complainant and wastage of judicial time; and

c. Issue directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Respondent State to widely publicize the manner in which such prior sanction can be obtained by a complainant / applicant preferring a Complaint under Section 200 CrPC, for the offences mentioned in Ss. 195 and 196 CrPC, to facilitate access to justice.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The matter has arisen out of the facts as detailed hereunder:

a. Both the petitioners are politicians of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (hereinafter “CPI(M)”). As per the contents of the petition, Petitioner No. 1 is a member of the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) and a former Member of Parliament. Petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Central Committee of the CPI(M), in addition to being the Secretary of Delhi State Committee of CPI(M).

b. It is the petitioners’ case that on 27th January 2020, Mr. Anurag Thakur, a Union Minister and Member of Parliament, allegedly made a hate speech at a rally in Rithala shouting the slogan “desh ke gaddaron ko'' and exhorting the crowd to respond with “goli maaron saalon ko.”

c. It is further alleged that on 28th January 2020, Mr. Parvesh Verma, Member of Parliament from West Delhi Lok Sabha Constituency, made inflammatory hate speeches while campaigning for the Bharatiya Janata Party (hereinafter “BJP”). Allegations are also levelled against hi