The Supreme Court has dismissed CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat's review petition against its April 29 judgment, which had ruled that no cognisable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the review petition in chambers, saying there was no error in its earlier judgment that required reconsideration.

"We have gone through the review petition as well as the grounds in support thereof. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration," the Bench said.

Earlier, the Court had also refused Karat's request for an open court hearing of the review petition.

The case relates to speeches made by the two BJP leaders during the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, when protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), including the Shaheen Bagh protest, were taking place.

Karat alleged that on January 27, 2020, Anurag Thakur, then Union Minister of State for Finance, led the crowd at an election rally in chanting the slogan, "Desh ke gaddaron ko... goli maaro saalon ko."

She also objected to remarks made a day later by Parvesh Verma, then the BJP MP from West Delhi and now Delhi's Deputy Chief Minister. Verma had claimed during the campaign that the Shaheen Bagh protesters would "enter houses and rape and kill people" if they were not stopped.

After these speeches, Karat approached the Delhi Police seeking registration of an FIR against both leaders for offences including promoting enmity between groups and hurting religious sentiments. When the police refused to register a case, she moved the trial court.

The trial court dismissed her plea, saying prior sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure was required before prosecuting public servants. The Delhi High Court upheld that decision in 2022, after which Karat approached the Supreme Court.

In its April 29 judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that prior sanction is not needed at the stage when a Magistrate considers ordering an investigation. However, after examining the speeches, the Court held that they did not disclose any cognisable offence and refused to direct the registration of an FIR.

Karat then filed a review petition challenging that decision. The Supreme Court has now dismissed the plea, leaving its earlier judgment unchanged.