Uttar Pradesh justifies decision not to prosecute Yogi Adityanath in hate speech
The state justified the move before the Supreme Court, saying it was based on an opinion given by the law ministry. The video, based on which the complaint was filed was tampered with, read the UP government’s affidavit.
The Uttar Pradesh government has defended the Allahabad High Court’s order upholding the state government’s decision to decline sanction to prosecute chief minister Yogi Adityanath in a 12-year-old hate speech case.
The state justified the move before the Supreme Court, saying it was based on an opinion given by the law ministry. The video, based on which the complaint was filed was tampered with, read the UP government’s affidavit. “After analysing complete records and in the light of the legal opinion received, the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh reached the decision that there is no justification to grant sanction for prosecution. Accordingly, the CB-CID [crime branch-criminal investigation department] closed the matter,” stated the affidavit that was filed last month.
The Supreme Court had on August 20 last year issued notice to the state on a petition filed by Parwej Parvaz challenging Allahabad High Court’s order accepting state’s decision not to go ahead with the prosecution against the CM.
Parvaz had on November 2, 2008 moved a magistrate court in Gorakhpur that ordered registration of a criminal case against Adityanath. The complainant had claimed the hate speech delivered by him had led to riots. He contended the police investigation was shoddy and unscientific and he had demanded an impartial probe into the case.
However, the state’s principal home secretary in May 2017 said that the draft probe report of the CB-CID did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Adityanath. But Parvaz contended the decision was vitiated as the home department was under the chief minister who could not be a “judge in his own cause”. He even stated the video-recording of the alleged speech was available on YouTube.
Defending the denial of sanction before the top court, the state said: “The order of the sanctioning authority was based upon opinion received by Law Department stating that in the absence of evidence, there is no justification to grant sanction for prosecution…the Hon’ble High Court has passed a well-reasoned order.” The order was passed by the competent authority after full agreement with the opinion given by the law department, the state said.