The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for four weeks seeking discharge in a case against him for allegedly making objectionable remarks against the BJP and the Congress in Uttar Pradesh during the 2014 Lok Sabha poll campaign.
Kejriwal has moved to the apex court against an order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court which declined to discharge him in the criminal case pending before Sultanpur trial court.
A bench comprising of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala noted there was a request for adjournment by Kejriwal’s counsel.
Furthermore, the top court stated that it will take up the matter after four weeks.
Kejriwal has been accused of promoting enmity between classes in connection with elections under section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951.
On the campaign trail, Kejriwal alleged, “Jo Congress ko vote dega, mera manana hoga, desh ke saath gaddari hogi…. Joh Bhajapa (BJP) ko vote dega use Khuda bhi maaf nahin karega (Those who will vote for the Congress will be betraying the nation, and God will not forgive those who will vote for the BJP).”
In his plea before the apex court, Kejriwal stated that the petition raises some important questions of law, including whether a case under section 125 of the Act can be made out without there being any video clip or full transcript of the alleged speech made by him.
The plea stated, while campaigning on May 2, 2014, Kejriwal uttered some sentences that amounted to commission of offence under section 125 of the Act.
Furthermore, the petition said that a complaint was filed against him two days after the alleged utterances by the AAP leader.
Though the complaint alleged violation of only the Model Code of Conduct, the police registered an FIR on the very same day under section 125 of RP Act.
Kejriwal stated that this was done without any independent inquiry by the police. The plea submitted, it clearly shows the “biasness and the action taken post-haste” by the police.
It stated that it is the petitioner’s case that there is no proof or evidence that he had made such alleged utterance and hence, the very basic foundational evidence to prosecute him is absent in the matter.
The petition stated merely mentioning God (Khuda) can’t amount to promoting enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens.
It stated, “Alleged utterance by the petitioner does not refer to any particular caste or religion and hence, by no stretch of imagination such an alleged utterance can promote the feeling of enmity or hatred amongst different classes of citizens.”
The plea said Kejriwal didn’t refer to any religion or caste but only a political party, and a political party can’t be considered as a class of citizens for the purposes of section 125 of the Act.
