Court set to hear arguments in MCC violation case against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra

Meanwhile, the court has called a Status report from DCP North West with respect to procuring the material from social media platform X related to the post, allegedly made by the accused.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vaibhav Chaurasia directed the DCP to file a detailed report before the next date of hearing.

The court has listed the matter for arguments on charge on April 8.

Senior advocate Pavan Narang, along with advocates Neeraj and Himanshu Sethi, appeared for Kapil Mishra.

The court was informed that the appeal against the Summoning order was dismissed on 7 March by the session court.

A quashing petition has been filed before high court, which is pending for hearing on May 19, 2025. No stay has been granted, Senior advocate Narang submitted.

The matter is at the stage of framing the charge.

The court noted the submissions that on 22 July 2024 a status report was called from the Investigation Officer (IO) with regard to a tweet that was floated by the accused.

The Rouse Avenue court on March 7 dismissed the revision filed by Mishra. He had challenged the Cognizance and Summoning order of trial court.

The trial court had taken cognizance of the charge sheet in an alleged violation of the model code of conduct in 2020.

It is alleged that Kapil Mishra had made a statement in January 2020 when the model code of conduct in force.

"The word 'Pakistan' is very skilfully weaved by the revisionist in his alleged statements to spew hatred, careless to communal polarisation that may ensue in the election campaign, only to garner votes," the court had said while dismissing the revision.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh had dismissed the revision petition and said, "The Election Commission is under a constitutional obligation to prevent the candidates from indulging in vitriolic vituperation with impunity, vitiating and contaminating the atmosphere for a free and fair election."

"Therefore, this court is in complete agreement with the Trial Court that the complaint filed by the Returning Officer, notification of the Election Commission and other documents were sufficient to take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 125 of the RP Act. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed," the revision court ordered on March 7, 2025.

While rejecting the revision, the court had observed, "In fact, at this stage, the alleged statements of the revisionist (Kapil Mishra) appear to be a brazen attempt to promote enmity on the grounds of religion by way of indirectly referring to a 'country' which unfortunately in common parlance is often used to denote the members of a particular religion."

The court rejected the contention that the alleged matter doesn't attract section 125 of the RP Act.

It was submitted that his alleged statement nowhere refers to any caste, community, religion, race and language but has referred to a country which is not prohibited under section 125 of RP Act.

The court had said that this submission is simply preposterous and outrightly untenable, the implicit reference underlying the particular 'country' in the alleged statement is an unmistaken innuendo to persons of a particular 'religious community', apparent to generate enmity amongst religious communities. This can be effortlessly understood even by a layman, let alone by a reasonable man.

The court had said that accepting the submission that since revisionist has not referred to any grounds mentioned in Section 125 of RP Act (religion, race, caste, community and language) explicitly and hence Section 125 of RP Act is not attracted would be blatant negation of, and brutal violence with, the spirit underlying the provision of Section 125 of RP Act.

"One cannot be allowed to do something, that has been prohibited by Section 125 of RP Act, indirectly, if he cannot do it directly," the court held.

Kapil Mishra had filed a revision against the summoning order of June 22, 2024, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Rouse Avenue District Court and all consequential proceedings pending in the Criminal Case against him under section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act).

It was argued by Senior Advocate for Kapil Mishra that the offence under 125 of the RP Act is a non-cognizable offence in view of the findings of the High Court of Karnataka in a case titled 'Srikrishna Upadhyaya' and 'Dr. Prabhakar Bhat'.

An FIR was registered upon receipt of the letter of 24.01.2020 from the office of the Returning Officer, Assembly Constituency Model Town, addressed to DCP, North West, regarding violation of the Model Code of Conduct and RP Act by Mishra. (ANI)