The Supreme Court issued a fresh notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on AAP leader Somnath Bharti’s plea to transfer a case against him for allegedly making derogatory remarks about hospitals and schools. Bharti, claiming political vengeance, seeks to move the case from Sultanpur to Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has issued a fresh notice to the Uttar Pradesh government regarding Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti’s plea seeking the transfer of a case filed against him for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the condition of hospitals and schools in the state. Bharti has been battling the legal case in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sultanpur but is now seeking to have it transferred to the Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi.
The AAP leader’s remarks, which landed him in legal trouble, were made during a press interaction in Amethi district on January 10, 2021. Bharti had allegedly criticized the state of hospitals and schools in Uttar Pradesh, sparking a legal case. An FIR was lodged against him at the Jagdishpur police station in Amethi by Somnath Sahu, a local resident, claiming that Bharti’s comments were defamatory and derogatory towards the state.
Two separate cases were registered against Bharti, one in Rae Bareli and the other in Amethi, over his remarks. Bharti has consistently alleged that these cases were filed as a result of political vengeance rather than genuine concern over his comments. The AAP leader, known for his outspoken stance on social issues, claims that his statements were made in the interest of public welfare and that the legal proceedings against him are an attempt to suppress free speech.
In light of the legal proceedings, Bharti approached the Supreme Court, seeking a transfer of the case from the Sultanpur court to the Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi. Bharti’s legal team argued that the political environment in Uttar Pradesh might affect the fairness of the proceedings, and a transfer to Delhi would ensure an impartial trial.
On April 10, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and imposed an interim stay on the proceedings against Bharti in the Sultanpur court. The case has been pending since then, with the apex court staying the trial last year, on July 3, 2023. Bharti’s legal troubles have garnered attention due to the political undertones surrounding the case.
In the most recent development, a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar has issued a fresh notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, directing them to respond to Bharti’s plea. Additionally, a notice has also been issued to Somnath Sahu, the complainant who initially filed the FIR. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for the case in three weeks, providing both the state and the complainant time to submit their responses.
The apex court’s involvement comes as Bharti’s legal team pushes to move the case to a neutral jurisdiction. Their argument rests on the premise that the political nature of the case could impact the judicial process in Uttar Pradesh, and the Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi would provide a more unbiased platform for the case to proceed.
Bharti, a prominent figure in the Aam Aadmi Party, has alleged that the cases filed against him are motivated by political vendetta. Given the timing of the FIRs and the fact that Bharti’s remarks were critical of the state’s public institutions, his defense argues that these legal proceedings are tactically designed to stifle dissent and intimidate those who speak out against the state’s governance.
The cases registered in Amethi and Rae Bareli are seen as part of a broader strategy to silence political opposition, according to Bharti. The FIR in Amethi, in particular, stems from his comments regarding the substandard state of public hospitals and schools in Uttar Pradesh, a critique often voiced by opposition parties in the state.
As the case unfolds, all eyes are on the Supreme Court’s next move. With the fresh notice issued and the next hearing scheduled for three weeks, the future of the case remains uncertain. Whether the case will be transferred to Delhi or continue in Sultanpur could set a precedent for how politically charged cases are handled in India’s judicial system.
This case highlights the delicate balance between free speech and political power, raising questions about whether criticism of public institutions can be stifled through legal means. For now, the Supreme Court’s involvement provides Bharti a temporary reprieve as he seeks justice in a different court.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES