Supreme Court Closes Petition Against BJP Spokesperson Prashant Umrao
Last Updated on October 20, 2023 by News Desk
In a recent development, the Tamil Nadu government revealed to the Supreme Court on October 19 that only one First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against Prashant Umrao, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson from Uttar Pradesh. This FIR is related to allegations of him disseminating fake news regarding attacks on Bihari migrants in Tamil Nadu. The court was informed that a chargesheet would be filed concerning this singular FIR.
As a consequence of this disclosure, the Supreme Court has decided to close a writ petition submitted by Prashant Umrao. In his petition, Umrao sought to consolidate various complaints and FIRs that had been filed against him in response to his social media posts.
Two petitions were before the court: one was a writ petition requesting the consolidation of the complaints against Umrao registered at different police stations, and the other was a special leave petition challenging the conditions imposed by the Madras High Court when granting him anticipatory bail.
During the previous hearing, the court had expressed its displeasure over the misinformation Umrao had allegedly shared on social media. Justice Gavai, leading the bench, emphasized the need for greater responsibility, especially considering Umrao’s status as a lawyer, and requested that he issue an apology for spreading false information before the next hearing.
During the recent hearing, Tamil Nadu’s Additional Advocate General, Amit Anand Tiwari, informed the bench that the writ petition for consolidating FIRs had become irrelevant. He pointed to a counter-affidavit filed by the state government, which assured that only one FIR had been filed against Umrao. Tiwari added that Umrao could explore other legal avenues to challenge the FIR, stating that the investigation was complete, and a charge sheet would be submitted.
Umrao’s counsel conveyed that the BJP spokesperson had complied with previous orders by appearing before the investigating officer and the court. He stated, “We have also submitted the affidavit.”
In conclusion, the court modified the condition imposed by the high court, which required Umrao to appear before the Tamil Nadu police for seven hours every day for 15 days. The earlier interim directive allowed Umrao to appear at the police station once and as required by the investigating officer. Consequently, Umrao’s special leave petition was granted based on this temporary directive. The court’s decision ultimately affirmed that only one FIR had been filed against him, marking a pivotal moment in this legal dispute.
Written — Athi Venkatesh
