BJP's Kapil Mishra used word “Pakistan” to spew hatred during poll campaign: Delhi Court

A Delhi court on March 7 dismissed a plea by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra challenging the correctness of a trial court's decision to summon him in an electoral malpractice case tied to allegations that he made communal statements to seek votes for the Delhi assembly polls in 2020. .The controversial remarks are said to have been made on Mishra's social media account, and included statements such as “Delhi mein chote chote Pakistan bane” ("Delhi will become mini-Pakistan") and “Shaheen Bagh mein Pak ki entry” ("Shaheen Bagh will serve as entry for Pakistan").For making such statements, Mishra was charged under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act), for promoting enmity between classes to get gain an advantage during the Delhi Legislative Assembly Elections. He was summoned in this case by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in June 2024. On March 7, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi refused to set aside the summons and dismissed Mishra's revision plea against the same..Among other factors, Special Judge Singh was unconvinced by Mishra's stance that the words "Pakistan" and "Shaheen Bagh" in his alleged statements did not refer to any specific religious community or that it could not be viewed as promoting enmity between people. The judge remarked that, unfortunately, the word 'Pakistan' is often used to denote a particular religion. “At this stage, the alleged statements of the revisionist appear 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,” the court observed..The word ‘Pakistan’ is very skilfully weaved to spew hatred, to garner votes.Delhi court.The court further condemned the trend of making communally charged speeches during elections to garner votes. The judge added that it is a sad indication that the the colonial practice of 'divide and rule' is still practiced in India. “Though religious diversities are embraced but there also exist fragile atmosphere where the religious passion can be easily ignited. There has been a trend in this country to resort to communally charged speeches to garner votes during elections. 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 colonialists are sadly still in practice in India,” it said..There has been a trend to resort to communally charged speeches to garner votes. Divide and rule policy of colonialists sadly still in practice in India.Delhi court.The court also did not agree with Mishra’s argument that a comment regarding a country would not constitute an offence under Section 125 of the RP Act.“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. This can be effortlessly understood even by a layman, let alone by a reasonable man,” the court stated. .The court also held that the offence under Section 125 of RP Act is cognisable (serious crimes for which prior permission from a magistrate is not required for police investigation and in which cases arrests may be made without a warrant). This was to address Mishra's argument that since the offence under Section 125, RP Act is punishable with imprisonment only up to three years, the trial court was wrong to treat it as a cognisable offence. The Special Judge noted that the Supreme Court had, in another case, treated an offence under the Copyright Act, 1957 which too was punishable with three years of imprisonment as a cognisable offence. Drawing a parallel, the Special Court held that Section 125 of the RP Act was also a cognisable offence, since it had a similar imprisonment term prescribed as punishment. The court, therefore, dismissed Mishra's revision petition against the summons order. .[Read Order]