The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to halt trial court proceedings against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra for allegedly posting objectionable tweets during the 2020 assembly elections.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued a notice to the Delhi Police in response to Mishra’s plea challenging a sessions court ruling that upheld the summons issued by a magisterial court in the case. However, the high court saw no reason to stay the ongoing trial.
“There is no need to halt proceedings. The trial court is free to continue with the matter,” the judge remarked, granting four weeks for the police to submit their response. The next hearing is scheduled for May 19, while the trial court is set to hear the case on March 20.
Allegations & Legal Dispute
The case stems from tweets Mishra posted on January 23, 2020, during the Delhi assembly elections. The returning officer filed a complaint, leading to an FIR against him under Section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which deals with promoting enmity between communities in the context of elections.
On March 7, a sessions court upheld the lower court’s decision to take cognizance of the offense, emphasizing that Mishra’s statements appeared to be a “brazen attempt to promote enmity on religious grounds.” The court also criticized the alleged use of the word “Pakistan” in his tweets, arguing that it carried “an unmistakable innuendo targeting a particular religious community.”
Mishra’s Defense & Prosecution’s Stand
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Mishra, argued that the FIR was invalid as Section 125 is a non-cognizable offense and required prior approval under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. He further contended that Mishra’s tweets neither targeted specific communities nor incited enmity.
Instead, he claimed the statements criticized “anti-social and anti-national” elements who misused the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests.
Delhi Police opposed Mishra’s plea, asserting that his tweets aimed to foster communal hatred. The prosecution emphasized that both the magisterial and sessions courts had upheld the charges, and the trial court should determine the case’s merits during the framing of charges.
Jethmalani requested a stay, arguing that framing charges could damage Mishra’s reputation. However, the high court dismissed these concerns, stating that Mishra would not be prejudiced by the continuation of the trial.
“If a favorable finding emerges, all proceedings will be nullified,” the court noted.
Trial Court To Make Independent Assessment
Although the high court refused to stay proceedings, it directed the trial court to independently assess the framing of charges without being influenced by the sessions court’s observations.
The next hearing before the trial court is set for March 20, with further proceedings in the high court on May 19.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
