Despite Yogi’s hate speech resulted in riots, State saves CM from prosecution

New Delhi: No law seems to be above CM in UP as Adityanath’s government has successfully saved him from prosecution in connection with a 12-year-old hate speech.

Had this case been any different with any other minority religion leader or worker involved in hate speech, the government would have deliberately imposed sections 121( war against the state), 153 (A) (promoting enmity between religions )of IPC against the particular individual as was the case of AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi.

With supporting videos on Youtube to the claim of Yogi’s hate speech leading to riots, the government was successful in manipulating the shreds of evidence against the current CM, HT reports.

Petitioner Parwej Parvaz had on November 2, 2008 had moved a magistrate court in Gorakhpur that ordered registration of a criminal case against Adityanath.
The judgement was then challenged in Allahabad High court which upheld the state’s decision not to prosecute CM.

Following which Parvez moved Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High court’s judgement.

On August 20 last year, the top court issued the notice to the state on a petition filed Parvaz.

In its justification, the state said before the Supreme Court that the decision was based on an opinion given by the law ministry and that the video evidence that was submitted by the complainant was a tampered one.

The State’s affidavit read as “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.

The state’s principal home secretary in May 2017 had added that a draft probe report of the CB-CID did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Adityanath which was opposed by Parvaz who had contended that since the home department is under the CM, the decision of not prosecuting Adityantah is biased.

Defending itself 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.”