Breaking| Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Arvind Kejriwal In Case Over Alleged 'Khuda Believers Won't Be Pardoned If They Vote For BJP' Remark

The Allahabad High Court on Monday upheld the Sultanpur Court's order rejecting Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's discharge plea filed in connection with a 2014 case registered against him allegedly saying "those who believe in 'Khuda' won't be pardoned by 'Khuda' if they vote for BJP".

The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan said that it appeared that Kejriwal is threatening the voters in the name of Khuda knowing fully well that if he uses the term ‘Khuda’, some set of voters belonging to different religions might have severely been influenced.

The bench also added that prima facie, it was not decent for a person, who is the Chief Minister of one State, to utter any sentence or word which has any hidden meaning.

The case in brief

The case dates back to 2014, wherein an FIR was lodged against Kejriwal under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct by making a public statement “Jo Congress ko vote dega, mera manana hoga, desh ke saath gaddari hogi...jo Bhajpa ko vote dega use Khuda bhi muaf nahin karega, des ke sath gaddari hogi" [The one who votes for Congress, I would believe, will be betraying the country... The one who votes for BJP, even God will not forgive him, he will be betraying the country.]

The trial court took cognizance against him on September 6, 2014, under Section 125 of the Act, 1951, and summoned him. Thereafter, he moved to the High Court and even the Supreme Court seeking various reliefs in the matter, however, he was asked to move to the trial court seeking redressal of his grievances. 

Consequently, he moved a discharge application before the court of ACJM (Special Judge MP/MLA), Sultanpur whereby, his application was dismissed in August 2022. A revision plea, challenging the ACJM's order moved before the Session Judge was also dismissed in October 2022. Consequently, he moved the HC with the instant Section 482 Plea.

Arguments put forth

Before the Court, Kejriwal argued that in his alleged speech, he had not made any appeal for a vote on the ground of religion, etc. and he had not promoted enmity between the classes of the people, therefore, he may not be held liable for the offence under Section 125 of the Act, 1951.

It was also his stand that his statement was merely based upon his personal opinion and as such, the same is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India i.e. “Freedom of Speech and Expressions”.

On the other hand, Additional Government Advocate Alok Saran appearing for the state argued that Kejriwal could have used the word ‘Bhagwan’ but he deliberately and intentionally used the word ‘Khuda’ for those voters, who cast their votes to the Bhartiya Janta Party.

It was further submitted that during the investigation, sufficient material had been collected by the Investigating Officer, therefore, his intention to use the word ‘Khuda’ for those voters, who cast their votes for Bhartiya Janta Party and also as to why the voters of Congress would be branded as ‘Gaddar of the country’ may be determined during the course of the trial.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the extent of protection of speech under the ambit of Article 19 would depend on whether such speech would constitute a propagation of ideas or would have any social value, however, the Court added that it was unable to comprehend as to how Kejriwal's speech would constitute a propagation of ideas or would have any social value.

"So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the speech of the applicant is based on his personal opinion, therefore, no offence under Section 125 of the Act, 1951 may be constituted as it lacks mens-rea, so he will have to clarify his opinion before the trial court as to what is his source of knowledge that if any one who believes in ‘Khuda’ casts votes to Bhartiya Janta Party, those would not be pardoned by ‘Khuda’ and as to why this thing would not 19 be applicable for the voters, who cast vote to Congress," the Court said

The Court also added that since credible evidence to that effect is said to have been collected during the investigation and the charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the veracity of the charge may not be examined or tested by this Court by invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Further, stressing that it is not decent for a person, who is the Chief Minister of one State, to utter any sentence or word which has any hidden meaning, the Court, perusing the content of the speech, remarked thus:

"As per the contents of his speech, the voters of the Congress would be termed as ‘Gaddar of the country’ whereas the voters of the Bhartiya Janta Party would not be pardoned by ‘Khuda’. It is true that Khuda, Bhagwan or God are one and the same but using the word ‘Khuda’ by one Hindu leader only for those voters, who cast their votes to the Bhartiya Janta Party not to the Congress can only be clarified by the applicant during the course of the trial about his intent to use such word."

Further, perusing Section 125 of the Act, 1951, the Court noted that if the feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India is promoted, the same shall be treated as an offence under such section and punishable under Section 125 of the Act, 1951. Taking into account his speech in light of the said provision, the Court observed thus:

"The statement so given by the applicant is not so plain and simple inasmuch as for one set of voters, he is uttering the term ‘Gaddar of the country’ and for the other set of voters, he is saying that ‘Khuda shall not pardon them’. Prima facie, it appears that he is threatening the later voters in the name of Khuda knowing fully well that if he uses the term ‘Khuda’, some set of voters belonging to different religion might have severely been influenced."

Consequently, holding that Section 482 CrPC powers should be invoked very sparingly and cautiously (relying upon Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court refused to interfere in ACJM court's order as well as the order of the revisional court and dismissed his plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Advocates Mahmood Alam, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Manmohan Singh, Nadeem Murtaza, Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.

Case title - Arvind Kejriwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No.42 of 2023]

Case Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order