'Hisab Kitab' Remark| 'Acts Promoting Divisiveness Impinge Upon Pluralism': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To UP MLA Abbas Ansari

The Allahabad High Court today refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Mau Sadar MLA Abbas Ansari, the son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari in connection with the Hisab-Kitab Remark case.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that considering the context and the intention with which the offending words were spoken in a public meeting by Ansari, at this stage it cannot be said that the offence under Section 153-A IPC is not attracted against the petitioner.

"The scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and it should be exercised in exceptional cases where the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose any offence. Whether the offence under Section 153-A IPC gets attracted or not, would depend on the quality of evidence led by the prosecution during the trial. However, at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings or the charge sheet," the Court's order reads.

The case against Ansari pertains to an alleged statement (attached in the tweet below) by him threatening government officials with payback at a public rally in Mau district in March 2022, if the SP-SBSP alliance forms the government in the state.

The FIR was registered against him for the said alleged statement which was made in a public meeting during his election campaign for UP Assembly Elections. He contested and won the said elections (from Mau Sadar Assembly) on the ticket of the Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party. 

He had moved the High Court challenging the chargesheet as well as summoning and cognizance taking order of the Court below on the ground that the alleged statement by no stretch of the imagination would constitute an offence under Section 153-A IPC.

It was further argued by his Counsel Upendra Upadhyay that an offence under Section 153-A IPC, there must be an intention of the person making the statement to create disorder or to incite people to violence, and even if it is believed that he made the said statement, the statement was directed towards the Government people and not against any member, religion, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.

On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the offending statement made was not only directed against the Government machinery but it was also directed against the law-abiding and peace-loving citizens/communities, who were feeling protected under the then government in the State from the atrocities and crimes of Ansari and his family and other co-accused.

It was further submitted that Ansari was sure that the Government of Samajwadi Party led by Akhilesh Yadav would occupy the seat of power in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, he made the threatening statement, which had the propensity to disturb the public order.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court perused the content of Section 153A IPC and noted that the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed (as held by the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab; (1995) 3 SCC 214).

However, the Court that means rea could be proved during the trial, however, if it could be prima facie proved that the act, sign or words had the propensity to disturb the public order or incite the people to violence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the context and the intention with which the offending words were spoken in a public meeting, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 153-A IPC was not attracted against the petitioners.

Significantly, the Court also opined that the unity and integrity of the Nation cannot be overlooked and slighted, as acts that promote or are likely to promote divisiveness, alienation and schematism do directly and indirectly impinge on diversity and pluralism.

"Preamble to the Constitution consciously puts together fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation which are linked; one in the form of rights of individuals; and other in the form of individual’s obligation to others to ensure unity and integrity of the Nation....When such acts are done with the objective and intent to cause public disorder or to demean the dignity of the targeted groups, they have to be dealt with as per law and such an act would attract the offence under Section 153-A IPC," the Court further added.

Consequently, his plea was dismissed.

Case title - Abbas Ansari and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [Application U/S 482 No.25838 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 44

Click Here To Read/Download