The Supreme Court has extended the stay on legal proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal in the Uttar Pradesh election law violation case. This means that actions against Kejriwal regarding alleged violations during the Uttar Pradesh elections are on hold. The case centers on accusations that Kejriwal promoted enmity between classes during the 2014 election campaign. Kejriwal’s defense argues that his statements targeted a political party, not any specific religion or caste, challenging the applicability of Section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951. The Supreme Court’s extension of the stay offers Kejriwal temporary relief while legal proceedings continue.
New Delhi: Arvind Kejriwal has appealed before the Supreme Court against a decision by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The decision refused to dismiss a criminal case against him that is pending in a trial court in Sultanpur. The Supreme Court, comprised of Justices M. M. Sundresh and S. V. N. Bhatti, has agreed to hear Kejriwal’s appeal and the interim relief remains extended.
During the proceedings, the bench remarked on the nature of the case, stating,
“Let the interim order continue. What is all this? These are all irrelevant matters. It is not a matter for us to go into.”
Kejriwal is facing charges of promoting enmity between classes under Section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951. These allegations arise from statements made during the 2014 election campaign.
“Those who will vote for the Congress will be betraying the nation, and God will not forgive those who will vote for the BJP.”
– Kejriwal Stated
Section 125 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Promoting enmity between classes in connection with elections
Any person who, in connection with an election under this Act, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, with a fine, or with both.
READ ALSO: Adarsh Scam | 12 Years Later, Court Yet to Acknowledge Chargesheet Against Ashok Chavan
In his defence, Kejriwal argued that the remarks were aimed at a political party and not any specific religion or caste, thus questioning the applicability of Section 125 of the RP Act. He also raised concerns about the evidentiary value of the case, highlighting the absence of video evidence or a complete transcript of the alleged speech.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
