The Delhi minister faces an FIR over his tweets that the Aam Aadmi Party and Congress had created a ‘mini-Pakistan’ at Shaheen Bagh during anti-CAA agitation
NEW DELHI – A court in the national capital came down heavily on Delhi Police for its “casual attitude” and an inadequate investigation against Kapil Mishra, a minister in the BJP government in Delhi, for his hateful tweets during the 2020 assembly elections about the Shaheen Bagh agitation against the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizen.
Kapil Mishra faces an FIR over his tweets that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress had created a “mini-Pakistan” at Shaheen Bagh and that the then assembly polls would be a contest between “India and Pakistan”.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed on Monday that a diligent endeavour was made by the court since March last year for the collection of evidence against Mishra’s Twitter handle, “but in vain.”
The judge impressed upon the police to at least procure the relevant material forming part of the chargesheet, as was directed more than a year ago.
The censure came from the court after the investigating officer (IO) failed to appear before it to provide an update on the progress in the probe.
“No one is present on behalf of the investigating agency to follow up the directions of further investigation and before any stringent remarks could be made upon the casual attitude of the investigating agency qua the directions of this court, this court is constrained to bring it to the notice of worthy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police with respect to the state of affairs and non-adequate explanation on the part of the investigating agency,” the court was quoted as saying by Bar And Bench portal.
The court was hearing a case registered against Mishra in January 2020 for allegedly violating the model code of conduct and provisions of the Representation of the People Act through inflammatory social media posts. On a previous hearing, the DCP Northwest informed the court that a request had been sent to social media platform X seeking data related to Mishra’s post, and that a response was awaited.
Expressing dissatisfaction, ACJM Chaurasia observed, “Before commenting on the lackadaisical conduct of the prosecution, this court is constrained to bring to the notice of the commissioner of Delhi Police the state of affairs and the inadequate explanation on the part of the investigating agency.”
The court also noted that despite repeated assurances from the prosecution of a thorough and efficient investigation, there had been little progress. “It is suggested that if any help from any other ministry is required, this court is of the opinion that the Delhi Police is well equipped to take recourse to the same,” media reports cited the court as saying.
Stressing the need for time-bound action, the court said: “It is also impressed upon the investigating agency to at least procure the essential material which must be part of the investigation within the time limit as has been directed by this court.” The court noted the case has been pending since March 20, 2024.
The magistrate attached two previous orders with Monday’s directive and instructed that the documents be forwarded to the commissioner of police and the joint commissioner of police (Northern Range).
Public prosecutor Lalit Pingolia appeared for the Delhi Police. The court listed the matter for further hearing on July 7 and directed the police to file a status report by then. Arguments on the charge by Mishra’s legal team are also scheduled to continue on the next date.
Appearing for Mishra, senior advocate Pawan Narang argued that his client, then the BJP candidate from Model Town, had no intention of inciting communal disharmony and was merely pointing to what he perceived as biased political conduct. “At most, the only offence committed by Mishra is that of criminally defaming the AAP and Congress, who could have filed a civil suit or a criminal complaint for making any alleged false statements,” Narang submitted.
Mishra has also contended that the chargesheet lacks substantive material to support the prosecution’s claim of a violation under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with promoting enmity on religious grounds.
On March 7, a Delhi court dismissed Mishra’s revision petition challenging the cognisance of the chargesheet. Special Judge Jitendra Singh had ruled that Mishra’s statements “brazenly promoted religious enmity” by using “Pakistan” as a veiled reference to a particular community.
Mishra has since moved the Delhi High Court against the order. While the high court allowed trial proceedings to continue, it clarified that its order would not affect Mishra’s challenge to the March 7 ruling. That petition remains pending.
