NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to halt trial court proceedings against BJP leader and Delhi minister Kapil Mishra in connection with a 2020 FIR lodged over contentious tweets by him amid the Delhi Assembly elections held that year. Notably, Mishra had accused AAP and the Congress of turning Shaheen Bagh into a “mini Pakistan” and framed the Delhi Assembly polls as a battle between “India and Pakistan” in those posts.
Though Justice Ravinder Dudeja denied interim relief to Mishra, it sought a response from the Delhi Police on his petition challenging a special judge’s decision earlier this month that upheld a magisterial court’s order summoning him in the case.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Mishra, contended that the tweets did not specifically target any religious or social groups — which is necessary for the invocation of Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Jethmalani further argued that Mishra’s remarks merely delineated a political divide between those supporting and opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and did not allude to religious groups, such as Hindus or Muslims.
Additionally, he emphasised that Section 125 is a non-cognisable offence, meaning that an FIR is not to be registered without prior judicial approval under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. Jethmalani reiterated that Mishra’s comments were political in nature and aimed at exposing “anti-national” elements allegedly using the anti-CAA protests to disrupt societal harmony.
The Delhi Police strongly opposed the plea, highlighting that two courts had already upheld the case against Mishra. The prosecution argued that his tweets did not mention the CAA and were clearly designed to incite hostility between religious communities. They also contested the claim that Section 125 is non-cognisable, asserting that its application to the case was appropriate.
Observing the complexity of the case, Justice Dudeja directed the Delhi Police to file its reply within four weeks. However, he declined Jethmalani’s request to stay the trial proceedings. “Let the trial proceed. If a ruling in your favour comes later, the proceedings will be nullified,” the court remarked.
The HC clarified that while the trial court could proceed with the framing of charges, it must do so independently without being influenced by prior observations made by the sessions court regarding the merits of the case. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on May 19.