A Delhi court criticized BJP leader Kapil Mishra for using the word “Pakistan” to spread hatred during his election campaign. The court refused to cancel the summons issued against him in an electoral malpractice case. It also condemned the use of communal speeches to influence voters. The ruling emphasized the need for fair and unbiased campaigning.
New Delhi: A Delhi court 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.