'Brazen attempt to promote enmity': Court rejects Kapil Mishra’s revision plea

A DELHI court on Friday (7) dismissed a plea of Delhi law minister Kapil Mishra against the summons issued to him for making "objectionable statements" and violating the model code of conduct in 2020.

Special judge Jitendra Singh observed the Election Commission of India was under a constitutional obligation to prevent the candidates from indulging in "vitriolic vituperation with impunity, vitiating and contaminating the atmosphere for free and fair election".

Mishra is accused of posting objectionable statements in the electronic media on January 23, 2020, from his X, then Twitter, handle in connection with then Delhi legislative assembly elections, based on which a complaint was filed by the returning officer, which resulted in an FIR.

The judge said he was in complete agreement with the magisterial court that the complaint filed by the returning officer was sufficient to take cognisance of the offence under Section 125 (promoting enmity between classes in connection with election) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act.

Mishra’s statements, the court said, appeared to be "a brazen attempt to promote enmity on the grounds of religion by way of indirectly referring to a country which unfortunately in common parlance is often used to denote the members of a particular religion".

"The word Pakistan is very skilfully 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," it said.

The court rejected as "simply preposterous and outrightly untenable" Mishra’s argument that his alleged statement did not refer to any caste, community, religion, race and language but mentioned a country, which was not prohibited under Section 125 of the RP Act.

The court said the implicit reference to a particular country in the alleged statement was an "unmistaken innuendo to persons of a particular religious community" and this could be "effortlessly understood even by a layman, let alone by a reasonable man".

Accepting Mishra’s argument that Section 125 of the RP Act was not attracted would be "blatant negation of, and brutal violence with, the spirit underlying the provision", the court said.

"One cannot be allowed to do something that has been prohibited by Section 125 of RP Act, indirectly, if he cannot do it directly," it added. (PTI)