Supreme Court ने न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट की FIR पंजीकरण निर्देश करने की शक्ति को स्पष्ट किया – पूर्व अनुमति की आवश्यकता नहीं

<h2>Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power to Direct FIR Registration – No Prior Sanction Needed</h2> <p>On <strong>29 April 2026</strong>, the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — The apex judicial body in India, whose judgments bind all lower courts and have constitutional significance (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> ruled that a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial Magistrate — A lower court officer empowered to take cognizance of offences and direct police actions under the CrPC (GS2: Polity)">Judicial Magistrate</span> does not need prior sanction under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 196 CrPC — Provision requiring government approval before taking cognizance of offences like hate speech under IPC Sections 295A, 153A, 153B (GS2: Polity)">Section 196 CrPC</span> or <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 197 CrPC — Provision requiring prior sanction for offences against public servants (GS2: Polity)">Section 197 CrPC</span> to order registration of a <span class="key-term" data-definition="FIR (First Information Report) — The initial police document recording a cognizable offence; its registration is mandatory under law (GS2: Polity)">FIR</span> under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 156(3) CrPC — Allows a magistrate to direct police to investigate a cognizable offence and register an FIR (GS2: Polity)">Section 156(3) CrPC</span>.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Court held that the sanction requirement applies only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the pre‑cognizance stage of FIR registration.</li> <li>The judgment arose from a petition by CPI(M) leader <strong>Brinda Karat</strong> challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to order FIRs against BJP leaders for alleged hate speeches linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.</li> <li>The bench of Justices <strong>Vikram Nath</strong> and <strong>Sandeep Mehta</strong> partially allowed the petition, overturning the High Court’s view on Section 156(3) CrPC.</li> <li>The Court reiterated that police duty to register an FIR on disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory, as earlier held in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Lalita Kumari case — Supreme Court judgment (2013) that made FIR registration mandatory upon receipt of information about a cognizable offence (GS2: Polity)">Lalita Kumari case</span>.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>Remedies for non‑registration of FIR include approaching the Superintendent of Police under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 154(3) CrPC — Allows an aggrieved person to request the SP to register an FIR when the police refuse (GS2: Polity)">Section 154(3) CrPC</span>, invoking magistrate jurisdiction under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 156(3) CrPC — See above (GS2: Polity)">Section 156(3) CrPC</span>, or filing a complaint under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 200 CrPC — Procedure for filing a c