Delhi HC refuses stay on trial court order on Kapil Mishra's alleged provocative remarks

New Delhi [India], March 18 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to stay a trial court's order that declined to quash the case against Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra over his alleged incendiary comments during the 2020 assembly elections.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja's bench issued a notice regarding the petition and scheduled the hearing for May 19. The court, however, instructed the trial court not to consider the observations made by the sessions court on merits while passing its order.
Although the counsel requested a stay on the trial court proceedings, the court did not agree. Instead, it directed the trial court to remain uninfluenced by the sessions court's observations on merits. The court emphasised that the trial court is free to independently assess the submissions made by the parties.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Mishra, argued that the offence is a non-cognizable offence with a maximum punishment of three years as such FIR could not have been filed without following procedure under CrPC.
He pointed out that in the alleged tweets there are no communities or religion being addressed which is essential for the offence to be made out. There has not been any reference to any community and no intention was there to spread hatred.
He submitted that the tweet was made to say that the elections are to be contested between nationalists and anti-nationalists and to condemn the ongoing anti-CAA agitation.
"This is an appeal on nationalist ground. It should not be confused with religious grounds", Jethmalani argued.
Delhi Police opposed the petition filed before the court while pointing out that there is no reference to CAA in the tweets. "He was a public servant and should have been careful". It was also argued that the offence is a cognizable offence.
Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging a trial court's decision to dismiss his plea seeking to quash proceedings against him.
The allegations stem from Mishra's January 2020 remarks, where he referred to Shaheen Bagh, a Muslim-majority area, as "Mini-Pakistan," allegedly to polarise voters ahead of the 2020 assembly elections, which were said to violate the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and included "objectionable statements."
The FIR against Mishra was filed following a letter from the Returning Officer of the Model Town Assembly Constituency, citing violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the RP Act.
On March 7, 2025, a Rouse Avenue Court rejected Mishra's revision petition against the trial court's cognizance and summoning order in the case. The trial court had observed that Mishra deliberately used the term "Pakistan" to incite communal tensions for electoral advantage.
The court concluded that the evidence provided by the Returning Officer and the Election Commission was sufficient to justify the trial court's cognizance under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act (RP Act).
Dismissing Mishra's argument that his statements did not explicitly reference any religion, the court found the term "Pakistan" to be a clear innuendo targeting a specific religious community, the court emphasised that indirect violations of Section 125 of the RP Act cannot be permitted, as they undermine the provision's intent to prevent communal enmity.
Mishra's counsel had also contended that the offence under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act (RP Act) was non-cognizable, citing precedents from the Karnataka High Court. However, the court rejected this claim, affirming the charges' validity. (ANI)