The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim stay on proceedings against Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in a case related to alleged objectionable remarks he made against the BJP and Congress during the 2014 Lok Sabha poll campaign in Uttar Pradesh.
Kejriwal had approached the apex court after the Allahabad High Court rejected his plea for discharge in the criminal case pending before a trial court in Sultanpur.
The FIR accuses Kejriwal of violating section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, which deals with promoting enmity between classes in connection with elections.
A bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh adjourned the matter after noting there was a request to defer the matter by one of the parties.
“Interim order to continue,” the bench stated.
In the alleged remarks, Kejriwal reportedly stated, “Joh Congress ko vote dega, mera maanna 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 filed in the Supreme Court, Kejriwal has argued that the petition raises significant legal questions, such as whether a case under section 125 of the Representation of the People Act can be established without any video clip or complete transcript of the accused’s alleged speech.
According to the plea, it is alleged that during an election campaign on May 2, 2014, for the Lok Sabha polls, Kejriwal made statements that amount to an offense under section 125 of the Representation of the People Act.
The plea states that two days after the alleged remarks by the AAP leader, a complaint was filed in the matter. Although the complaint only alleged a violation of the Model Code of Conduct, the police registered the FIR on the same day under section 125 of the RP Act without conducting an independent inquiry. The plea argues that this demonstrates bias and hasty action by the police. Furthermore, the plea asserts that there is no evidence to prove that Kejriwal actually made the alleged statements, thereby lacking the fundamental basis for prosecuting him. The plea also contends that merely mentioning God (Khuda) does not amount to promoting enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens. It argues that the alleged statements made by the petitioner do not refer to any specific caste or religion. Therefore, it is claimed that such statements cannot promote feelings of enmity or hatred among different classes of citizens. The plea emphasizes that Kejriwal did not refer to any religion or caste but only mentioned a political party. It argues that a political party cannot be considered a class of citizens for the purposes of section 125 of the Act.
