Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of India

Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2026

It held that requiring sanction at FIR stage would distort the statutory scheme of criminal procedure.

Supreme Court of India·30 April 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

30 April 2026

Judges

Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 156(3) CrPC Section 196 CrPC Section 197 CrPC Section 190 CrPC Article 32 & Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a petition by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat seeking registration of FIRs against political leaders for alleged hate speech before the 2020 Delhi riots.
The Magistrate refused to direct FIR registration, holding that prior sanction under Section 196/197 CrPC was required.
This view was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
The matter reached the Supreme Court challenging the legality of requiring sanction at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC proceedings.
The issue also involved broader questions on hate speech regulation and criminal procedure safeguards.

Whether prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC is required before a Magistrate can direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC?
Whether an order under Section 156(3) CrPC amounts to “taking cognizance” of an offence under Section 190 CrPC?
Whether the requirement of sanction applies at the pre-cognizance stage of investigation?

The Supreme Court held that no prior sanction is required for directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC.
It clarified that sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the pre-cognizance stage.
An order under Section 156(3) CrPC does NOT amount to cognizance of an offence.
The Court relied on earlier rulings including:
- Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
- State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju
It held that requiring sanction at FIR stage would distort the statutory scheme of criminal procedure.
The Court reaffirmed that FIR registration is mandatory under Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. when cognizable offences are disclosed.
It also clarified that alternative remedies exist under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 CrPC.
The Court upheld the High Court’s view on merits of the case but set aside its legal observation on sanction requirement.

No prior sanction is required for Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Section 156(3) proceedings are pre-cognizance in nature.
Sanction applies only at the stage of cognizance under Section 190 CrPC.
The petition was partly allowed.

The Court reaffirmed the sequential structure of criminal procedure law.
It strengthened the principle that FIR registration is independent of sanction requirements.
The ruling prevents procedural delays in criminal investigations.
It protects the investigative autonomy of police and Magistrates.
The Court emphasized non-interference at pre-cognizance stage, ensuring smooth criminal process flow.
It also balanced this with safeguards through statutory remedies and constitutional jurisdiction (Articles 32 & 226).
The judgment clarifies confusion created by conflicting interpretations in prior case law, especially in corruption-related precedents.
Overall, it reinforces access to justice in cognizable offences and prevents procedural obstruction.