New Delhi: A Delhi court has dismissed a plea by Bharatiya Janata Party leader and now Delhi’s law and justice minister Kapil Mishra challenging a summons in a 2020 case related to his tweets during the Delhi assembly elections. The court found that Mishra’s use of the word “Pakistan” was a deliberate attempt to incite hatred.
The case stems from an FIR registered against Mishra following a complaint from the Returning Officer, alleging a violation of the Model Code of Conduct and the Representation of the People (RP) Act. Mishra’s tweets, which referred to the Shaheen Bagh protest as a “mini Pakistan” and framed the election as a contest between “India and Pakistan”, were found to promote enmity between groups.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh, of the Rouse Avenue Courts, observed, “The word ‘Pakistan’ is very skillfully weaved by the revisionist in his alleged statements to spew hatred, careless to communal polarisation that may ensue in the election campaign, only to garner votes.” The court added that there has been a trend in India to resort to communally charged speeches to garner votes.
The court rejected Mishra’s argument that his statements did not refer to any specific caste, community or religion, stating that the “implicit reference” to a particular “religious community” was unmistakable. The judge stated: “This submission is simply preposterous and outrightly untenable, the implicit reference underlying the particular ‘country’ in the alleged statement is an unmistaken innuendo to persons of a particular ‘religious community’, apparent to generate enmity amongst religious communities.”
The court emphasised the Election Commission’s constitutional obligation to prevent candidates from indulging in “vitriolic vituperation” that could undermine free and fair elections. It upheld the magisterial court’s summoning order, stating that the complaint and supporting documents were sufficient to take cognizance of the offence under Section 125 of the RP Act.
The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining communal harmony, noting that “free and fair elections are the very foundations of any vibrant democracy” and that while India embraces religious diversity, a “fragile atmosphere” exists where religious passions can be easily ignited. The judge added that, “This is the outcome of politics of divisiveness and politics of exclusion which is a threat to democratic and plural fabric of the country. Divide and rule policy of the colonialist are sadly still in practice in India.”
