The Delhi High Court has refused to stay a trial court’s order declining to quash proceedings against Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra over his alleged provocative remarks made during the 2020 assembly elections.
A bench led by Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued a notice on the petition and scheduled the next hearing for 19 May. However, the court directed the trial court not to consider the observations made by the sessions court on merits while passing its order.
Despite a request for a stay on the trial court proceedings, the High Court did not grant relief. Instead, it emphasised that the trial court should assess the submissions independently, without being influenced by the sessions court’s observations.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Mishra, argued that the case was based on a non-cognisable offence, which carries a maximum punishment of three years. He stated that an FIR could not have been registered without following due procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
He further contended that Mishra’s alleged remarks did not refer to any religious community, which is essential for the offence to be established.
He maintained that the tweet in question merely framed the elections as a contest between nationalists and anti-nationalists and was aimed at condemning the ongoing anti-CAA protests.
“This is an appeal on nationalist grounds. It should not be misinterpreted as being religious,” Jethmalani argued.
Opposing the petition, Delhi Police asserted that there was no reference to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mishra’s tweets. The police also pointed out that Mishra, as a public servant, should have exercised greater caution in his statements.
Mishra has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court’s decision to dismiss his plea seeking to quash the proceedings against him. The case stems from his remarks in January 2020, where he allegedly referred to Shaheen Bagh, a Muslim-majority area, as “Mini-Pakistan,” which was seen as an attempt to polarise voters ahead of the elections.
His statements were alleged to have violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and contained objectionable content.
The FIR against Mishra was registered following a complaint from the Returning Officer of the Model Town Assembly Constituency, who cited violations of the MCC and the Representation of the People Act (RP Act).
On 7 March 2025, a Rouse Avenue Court dismissed Mishra’s revision petition against the trial court’s order summoning him in the case.
The trial court had ruled that Mishra deliberately used the term “Pakistan” to incite communal tensions for electoral gain.
The court noted that evidence provided by the Returning Officer and the Election Commission justified the trial court’s cognisance of the case under Section 125 of the RP Act.
It dismissed Mishra’s defence that his statements did not target any religious group, stating that his use of “Pakistan” was a clear insinuation aimed at a particular community.
The court also ruled that indirect violations of Section 125 of the RP Act could not be permitted, as they undermine the law’s purpose of preventing communal discord in elections.
Mishra’s counsel had argued that the offence was non-cognisable, citing Karnataka High Court precedents, but the court rejected this claim, upholding the charges.
Follow us
