Shivani Pandey-
Published on: August 2, 2021, at 11:15 AM
The Supreme Court observed that entertaining a Public Interest Litigation by a third party to rescind a First Information Report (FIR) would set a wrong precedent under criminal law. In Re: Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. Union of India.
The Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah stated that, “We can’t quash the FIR at the behest of third party. We can’t start entertaining PIL’s for quashing of FIR’s. This will otherwise set a very wrong precedent in criminal law,Please don’t file these kind of public interest litigations,”.
Subsequently, the Court in its order stated that withdrawal of the plea will not stand in the way of any disgruntled individual pursuing rights and remedies in accordance with the law.
The Petition filed by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav prayed for directions to the Delhi Police to refrain from registering FIRs or acting against those who allegedly put up posters across the National Capital on vaccine jab.
“In contrast to decisions of this Court, the authorities are registering FIR against the innocent persons over their hate speech against the Prime Minister with regard to his official functions during the second wave of COVID-19 crisis and Government vaccine policies,” the plea stated.
The posters had messages like: “Modi ji, aapne humare bacchon ki vaccine videsh kyu bhej diya?” (Modi ji, why did you send vaccines meant for our children abroad?).
In response, arrests were made by four different divisions of the Delhi Police – Eastern Range, East, Central and Northeast – suggesting a coordinated operation on the officials’ part, the plea mentioned.
Also read: Centre: Burden on States to implement Supreme Court order quashing S. 66A