CLAT-2027 Blog

SC Narrows Hate Speech Law: ‘Goli Maaro’ Verdict Discharges Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma (CLAT 2027)

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 11 MAY 2026

CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RELEVANT AREA

The Supreme Court has discharged then-Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Member of Parliament Parvesh Verma in the long-pending criminal proceedings arising from their 2020 anti-CAA campaign speeches at Rithala in Delhi, where the slogan “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko” was raised. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the connotation or meaning of the word “gaddar” (traitor) was not a reference to any particular community, that the slogans did not amount to a “cognisable offence” under Sections 153A, 153B and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and that the qualifications attached to Mr Verma’s remarks carried them outside the ongoing protest’s protected zone of public discourse. The judgment — being read by free-speech scholars (CPI-M leader Brinda Karat writing in the Indian Ideas Page on May 11) as narrowing the operational scope of India’s hate-speech law — has reignited the debate on where Article 19(1)(a) ends and Article 19(2)’s “reasonable restrictions” begin.

For CLAT 2027 aspirants, this is a textbook fact-pattern. Hate-speech jurisprudence has produced three landmark moments in the last decade — Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v Union of India (2014), which begged the Law Commission for a workable definition; Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), which struck down §66A of the IT Act for vagueness; and Amish Devgan v Union of India (2020), which laid down the variable test for criminality. The 2026 ‘goli maaro’ ruling now sits as a fourth data-point: a judicial pull-back that prioritises the speaker’s identifiable target and proximate threat to public order over broad community-impact reasoning.

Want structured CLAT preparation? Try our free 5-day Bodh Demo Course with live classes and expert guidance. Start Free →

Constitutional / Legal Framework

Constitutional anchor: Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(2) — reasonable restrictions on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.

Penal provisions (now under BNS post-1 July 2024): IPC §153A → BNS §196 (promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.); IPC §153B → BNS §197 (assertions prejudicial to national integration); IPC §295A → BNS §299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings — mens rea is essential per Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP, 1957).

Procedural shield: Section 196 CrPC (now Section 218 BNSS) requires prior government sanction to prosecute these offences. Doctrinal precedent: Pravasi Bhalai (2014), Shreya Singhal (2015), Amish Devgan (2020).

Why This Matters for CLAT 2027

Hate speech has appeared in five of the last seven CLAT papers as either a Legal Reasoning passage or a GK question on a leading case. The new ruling layers a fresh fact-pattern onto the Amish Devgan tripartite test — speaker identity, content, audience and contextual public-order risk. Aspirants must be prepared to apply the test BOTH ways: to convict, where speaker has mass reach + identifiable target community + proximate threat; to discharge, where the impugned phrase is held to be politically rhetorical and not aimed at any identifiable community. Bonus: the IPC-to-BNS section change is now a near-certain factual question.

Key Facts at a Glance

Aspect Detail
Bench Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Petitioner Brinda Karat (CPI-M leader); plea under §156(3) CrPC for FIR
Respondents Anurag Thakur (then MoS Finance), Parvesh Verma (BJP MP)
Backdrop Anti-CAA Shaheen Bagh protests, Jan 2020; Rithala campaign rally
Sections invoked IPC §§153A, 153B, 295A → now BNS §§196, 197, 299
Holding No cognisable offence; “gaddar” not a community-targeted term

Mnemonic

GAP test = Gaddar (target identity) + Audience (mass scale) + Public order (proximate threat)

If the impugned phrase fails ANY one prong of GAP, the Amish Devgan test is not satisfied and prosecution does not lie. The 2026 ruling failed the “Gaddar” prong — the Court read it as politically rhetorical, not community-targeted.

Test Yourself — 10-Question Quiz

Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions

Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.

Share this article
Test User
Written by Test User

Ready to Crack CLAT?

This article covers just one topic. Our courses cover the entire CLAT syllabus with 500+ hours of live classes, 10,000+ practice questions, and personal mentorship from top faculty.

500+Hours of Classes
10,000+Practice Questions
50+Mock Tests
Start your CLAT prep with a free 5-day demo course Start Free Trial →