The Allahabad High Court on Friday asked the UP government what legal remedy was the petitioners left with when the state has refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the Uttar Pradesh chief minister the prime accused in the case and also said that the petitioner in 2007 Yogi Adityanath hate speech case cannot be left with no remedy.
Final arguments in the case began on Friday with the state government putting forth its opening statement.
A K Mishra, additional advocate general representing UP government, claimed the petitioners did not have any new ground or factual foundation to move an amendment plea in the case, since the investigation was over and the chargesheet filed.”
“They have an alternative remedy under Section 190 of the CrPc. And they can also file a protest petition,” Mishra told the court. Section 190 refers to a magistrate having the power to take cognizance of any complaint or a police report or any piece of information about an offence.
The bench  comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Akhilesh Chandra Sharma  interjected saying that Section 190 was regulated by Section 196 of the CrPc, which makes the granting of sanction by the state government a prerequisite for the magistrate to take cognizance of an offence and initiate trial.
“I put this question to (the state, in a case where the state’s sanction is needed for prosecution the police has done its investigation, prepared the report and submitted it to the magistrate, but the sanction order is not there, can the magistrate proceed? What will the magistrate do?” Justice Murari asked.
On May 4, the court had come down heavily on the UP government for not giving sanction to prosecute Adityanath and four others despite the police completing its investigation and preparing the chargesheet over two years ago.
On May 11, in an affidavit to a bench comprising Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, the state government had told the court that it will not grant sanction to prosecute the chief minister because the main evidence in the case, a CD containing Adityanath’s hate speech, has been found tampered with.
