Mass Leaders must conduct themselves with utmost integrity: Delhi High Court while dismissing plea against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma

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

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh’s began the judgment with a shloka (verse) from the Bhagwada Gita that 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’,” it added.

The High Court then proceeded to express its opinion on conduct the role of leaders occupying high offices.

"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, however, rejected the plea stating that High Courts shouldn’t, as a matter of routine, exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available.

The verdict was in connection with the plea challenging a Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court order dismissing the plea of Karat and Tiwari.

“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 66-page judgment underscored.

The High Court held that as per Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) appropriate sanction was needed from the government when it came to offences alleged against the leaders.

Section 196 CrPC deals with prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence and the requirement of sanction of the government.

Justice Singh subsequently analysed various precedents, legal provisions and the circumstances surrounding the plea that had challenged a Magisterial Court order dismissing an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking registration of FIR against the leaders.

It was observed an “alternative” and “efficacious” remedy was available under the CrPC that had to be resorted to before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

“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," it held.

The offences alleged against the two politicians related to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds 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 deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person; intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace; public mischief and criminal intimidation.

The High Court clarified that though the left leaders’ petition was maintainable, it did not warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction because no rights — fundamental or legal — stood violated that would have otherwise required the intervention of the Court, with respect to the right to report a cognisable offence was concerned.

No “gross illegality” could also be attributed in the proceedings before the ACMM, the High Court held.

“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,” emphasised Justice Singh.

Commenting on the purpose of institutions, the court highlighted each of then had a purpose to serve in a democratic and constitutional framework governed by the rule of law. The mandate of investigative agency such as the police was stated to be sui generis or unique.

Advocates Tara Narula, Adit S Pujari, Aparajita Sinha and Chaitanya Sundriyal for petitioners.

Special Public Prosecutors Amit Mahajan and Rajat Nair besides Advocates Dhruv Pande and Kritagya Kumar Kait for respondents.

[Read Judgment]