The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted time for filing of applications for adding as parties certain political leaders to the petitions alleging that they delivered hate speeches which led to violence in February 2020 here in the backdrop of protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Senior advocates Colin Gonsalves and Sonia Mathur, who appeared for petitioners Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq and Lawyers Voice, respectively, said that they would file applications for the impleadment of the concerned persons to their petitions seeking registration of FIRs against the alleged wrongdoers.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani said the court is yet to allow the applications which will be considered after being filed.
Gonsalves clarified that his application was “very different” from the one that will be filed in the other petition, to which Justice Mridul responded, “Once she (Mathur) files an application, we will consider it. We are not allowing the applications yet. The applications have to be filed.”
Petitioner Farooq has sought registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma. The other petitioner has sought the registration of hate speech FIRs against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as well as Delhi's Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan, AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi and former AIMIM MLA Waris Pathan.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the petitioners if any order having criminal consequences can be passed in the absence of the parties getting affected as it emphasised that the presence of all necessary and proper parties is required for adjudication.
“Assuming that you are able to satisfy us, people, against whom allegation is made, can we proceed to issue directions against them without hearing them? Aren't they entitled to an opportunity to defend themselves?” the court asked.
Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing for Delhi Police, urged the court to defer hearing on the petitions until affected parties are impleaded.
He submitted that he would bring on record a list of issues that survive at this stage in the present petitions. Lekhi also contended that the aspect of the grant of compensation was a matter of policy and any related disputed question of fact cannot be looked into in a writ proceeding.
The court also questioned if a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable in the present batch of cases in view of the remedy available under the Criminal Code before magisterial courts.