The Delhi High Court Today (March 18) refused to stop trial proceedings against Kapil Mishra over his 2020 communal tweets, issuing a notice on his appeal. The court slammed his remarks as an attempt to spread religious enmity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court today declined to halt the trial court proceedings against Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra concerning a 2020 FIR related to his alleged communal tweets.
The court has issued a notice regarding Mishra’s appeal challenging the rejection of his plea against the summons.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja also issued notice to Delhi Police on the BJP leader’s plea challenging a sessions court order that had dismissed his petition against the summons issued to him by a magisterial court in the case.
“There is no need to stay the trial court proceedings. There is no stoppage of proceedings. This court does not feel it (is) necessary to stay the proceedings. The trial court is at liberty to proceed further with the matter,”
-the judge said.
In January 2020, ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections, Mishra referred to the Muslim-populated area of Shaheen Bagh as “mini-Pakistan” and remarked that the polls would be a contest between “India and Pakistan.”
He tweeted,
“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).”
These statements led to an FIR under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for promoting enmity between classes to gain an advantage during the elections.
In June 2024, Mishra was summoned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He challenged this summons, but on March 7, 2025, Special Judge Jitendra Singh dismissed his plea. The judge noted that Mishra’s usage of the word ‘Pakistan’ to refer to a Muslim-populated area was
“a brazen attempt to promote enmity on the grounds of religion.”
The court observed that there has been an increasing trend in India to resort to communally charged speeches to garner votes during elections, stating that the divide and rule policy of the colonialists is still in practice.
Mishra’s counsel argued that a comment regarding a country would not constitute an offense under Section 125 of the RP Act. However, the court rejected this submission, deeming it
“preposterous and outrightly untenable.”
The court stated that the implicit reference to a particular country in the alleged statement is an unmistakable innuendo to persons of a particular religious community, apparent to generate enmity amongst religious communities.
The court further rejected Mishra’s submission that since the offense under Section 125 of the RP Act is punishable with imprisonment only up to three years, the trial court was wrong to treat it as a cognizable offense. The court stated that the Election Commission is under a constitutional obligation to prevent candidates from indulging in vitriolic vituperation with impunity, vitiating and contaminating the atmosphere for free and fair elections.
In January 2020, Mishra was banned by the Election Commission from campaigning for 48 hours after he compared the Delhi Assembly elections to an “India vs Pakistan” contest. He is also widely accused of instigating the 2020 Delhi violence, which resulted in at least 53 deaths, mostly Muslims, along with targeted attacks against mosques, shops, homes, and other properties.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Delhi police reportedly refused to register a case against Mishra for his alleged role in the violence, and multiple pleas against him are pending in various Delhi courts.
PREVIOUSLY IN TRIAL COURT
A Delhi court on March 8 rejected a plea from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra, challenging a trial court’s decision to summon him in an electoral malpractice case.
This case involves allegations that he made communal statements to solicit votes during the Delhi assembly elections in 2020.
The contentious remarks attributed to Mishra were made on his social media account, including 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”).
He faces charges under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act), for promoting enmity between classes to gain an electoral advantage.
Mishra was summoned for this case by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in June 2024. On March 7, Special Judge Jitendra Singh from the Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi refused to quash the summons and dismissed Mishra’s revision plea.
The judge expressed skepticism regarding Mishra’s argument that the terms “Pakistan” and “Shaheen Bagh” did not target any specific religious community or promote enmity.
He noted,
“Unfortunately, the word ‘Pakistan’ is often used to denote a particular religion.”
The court observed,
“At this stage, the alleged statements of the revisionist appear to be a brazen attempt to promote enmity on the grounds of religion by indirectly referring to a ‘country’ which, in common parlance, is often used to denote members of a particular religion. The word ‘Pakistan’ is very skilfully woven by the revisionist in his alleged statements to spew hatred, careless of the communal polarization that may ensue in the election campaign, only to garner votes,”
The court further criticized the trend of using communally charged rhetoric during elections, asserting that it reflects a lingering colonial practice of ‘divide and rule’ in India.
The court stated,
“Though religious diversities are embraced, there also exists a fragile atmosphere where religious passion can be easily ignited. This is the outcome of a divisive politics that poses a threat to the democratic and plural fabric of the country,”
Mishra’s argument that a comment about a country could not constitute an offense under Section 125 of the RP Act was dismissed as “preposterous and outrightly untenable.”
The court emphasized that the implicit reference to a particular country in his statement clearly aimed to generate enmity among religious communities, which is evident even to a layman.
The court also affirmed that the offense under Section 125 of the RP Act is cognizable, contradicting Mishra’s claim that the trial court was mistaken to classify it as such since it carries a maximum punishment of three years.
The judge cited a precedent where the Supreme Court deemed similar offenses under the Copyright Act as cognizable, drawing a parallel to the RP Act.
Consequently, the court dismissed Mishra’s revision petition against the summons order.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
