The Supreme Court has extended its interim stay on proceedings against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a case stemming from alleged objectionable remarks made through the 2014 Lok Sabha ballot marketing campaign in Uttar Pradesh. The case revolves round accusations of Kejriwal making derogatory feedback against the BJP and the Congress.
Appeal against excessive courtroom order
Arvind Kejriwal has approached the apex courtroom difficult a choice by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which refused to dismiss the legal case against him pending earlier than a trial courtroom in Sultanpur. The Supreme Court, represented by a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and S V N Bhatti, has agreed to listen to Kejriwal’s enchantment, making certain that the interim reduction continues.
Judicial observations
During the proceedings, the bench remarked on the character of the case, stating, “Let the interim order continue. What is all this? These are all irrelevant matters. It is not a matter for us to go into.” The courtroom’s observations underscored the necessity for a targeted authorized examination of the problems at hand.
Allegations against Kejriwal
Arvind Kejriwal confronted expenses of selling enmity between courses beneath Section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951. The allegations stem from statements made through the 2014 election marketing campaign, the place he purportedly remarked, “Those who will vote for the Congress will be betraying the nation, and God will not forgive those who will vote for the BJP.”
Legal arguments
In his protection, Kejriwal’s plea argued that the remarks had been directed at a political occasion and never any particular faith or caste, thus difficult the applicability of Section 125 of the RP Act. He additionally raised questions concerning the evidentiary foundation of the case, highlighting the absence of video proof or a full transcript of the alleged speech.
Allegations of bias
The plea additional alleged bias on the a part of the police, stating that an FIR was registered with out impartial inquiry and merely based mostly on a criticism alleging a violation of the Model Code of Conduct.
Also learn | Supreme Court nullifies defamation criticism against RJD chief Tejashwi Yadav
