The Supreme Court today dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Umar Ansari, the son of the incarcerated gangster Mukhtar Ansari, who sought the quashing of a hate speech case registered against him in Uttar Pradesh related to an event where his elder brother, Abbas Ansari made a statement during his election campaign against the public authorities.

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal in its order noted "We are disinclined to entertain the SLP. Dismissed." The Bench also noted that "At the appropriate time, this order will not foreclose the option of the Petitioner to seek discharge at the appropriate stage of the proceeding."

Appearing for Umar Ansari, Advocate Nizam Pasha along with Advocate-on-Record Lzafeer Ahmad B. F. submitted "No role is applicable to me and no statement is made by me, my only role is that I was standing there on the stage when the speech was made." Pasha further said that "But the FIR says that he made the speech with me."

Justice Roy expressed his disinclination to entertain the SLP, remarking, "We cannot deal with the quashing of this case. When the High Court has declined to interfere, the Supreme Court will not entertain such a petition."

Advocate Pasha further requested the Court to consider the matter on its merits and proceeded to take the Court through the statement that led to the application of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. Pasha stated, "After the elections, the administration of District Mau will be held to settle accounts."

Justice Roy asked, "To say in Hindi, 'unko dekh lenge'?" Advocate Pasha clarified, "No, Milords, the Hindi expression was 'pehle 6 mahine tak kissi ka tabadala nahi hoga, hisab hoga." He further argued, "Where is 156(3) in this statement? This is a young boy," and requested the Court to quash the case.

"We are not entertaining this... the young boy. He has to also consider in whose company and care he was," said Justice Roy, to which Advocate Pasha quickly responded, "He is the brother, your Lordship. He is just born into that family and has not chosen that." The Court then dismissed the SLP.

The FIR in question came to be registered after Abbas Ansari, the elder brother of Umar Ansari, made a statement in a public meeting during his election campaign for Member of the Legislative Assembly from Mau Sadar Constituency that "समाजवादी पार्टी के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष श्री अखिलेश यादव जी से यह कहकर आया हूँ कि 6 महीने तक किसी का ट्रान्सफर पोस्टिंग नहीं होगी। भइया जो यहां है वो यहां ही रहेगा पहले हिसाब किताब होगा उसके बाद उसके जाने के सर्टीफिकेट पर मुहर लगाया जायेगा।" (I have come here after telling the National President of Samajwadi Party, Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, that there will be no transfer posting for six months. The one who is here will remain here, first the accounts will be settled, after that his departure certificate will be stamped.)

The Allahabad High Court had while dismissing the Petition noted that "Considering the context and the intention with which the offending words were spoken in a public meeting, at this stage it cannot be said that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is not attracted against the petitioners. The scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and it should be exercised in exceptional cases where the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose any offence. Whether the offence under Section 153-A IPC gets attracted or not, would depend on the quality of evidence lead by the prosecution during trial. However, at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings or the charge sheet."

Cause Title: Umar Ansari Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh [Diary No.- 20449 - 2023]

Justice Hrishikesh RoyJustice Pankaj MithalMukhtar AnsariHate Speech

Ramey Krishan Rana