'Bajrangbali-Dalit' Remark | Addressing A Public Meeting Different From Holding A Press Conference: Allahabad HC Grants Relief To CM Yogi

CM Yogi Adityanath had allegedly said that "(Hindu God) Hanuman Ji was a forest dweller, deprived and a Dalit. Bajrang Bali worked to connect all Indian communities together, from north to south and east to west"

The bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that the object of holding a general public meeting during elections is to address the gathering present there so as to imbibe a thought in them for supporting the said political party.

"Conveying a press conference and/or giving an interview to the press is a totally different act than addressing a general public meeting in elections. A person holding a press conference and a person giving an interview to the press has a clear intention and message to the persons present that his speech or lecture or answers be published in newspaper and magazines. Addressing a general public meeting during elections for the purposes of canvassing elections is a totally different act with a different intention and object. The same is to address the gathering present at the spot so as to imbibe a thought in them for supporting the said political party," the bench remarked.

The case in brief

An advocate named Naval Kishor Sharma moved a complaint before the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Addl. Chief Judicial (2) Magistrate/M.P. M.L.A. Court in 2019 seeking to register a criminal case against the UP CM for his alleged remark.

In March 2022, the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. with the observation that the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Against that order, the complainant/petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Mau which was dismissed in April 2022.

Challenging both the orders, the instant present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has thus been filed before the High Court.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the basis for making allegations against the UP CM was a news article relied upon by the petitioner, however, the complainant and his witnesses were not present in the said meeting where the words as said to have been hurt their religious sentiments, faith and have caused disrepute to Lord Bajrangbali were said.

The Court further opined that the reporting in newspapers is hearsay secondary evidence in itself and unless the person reporting it is examined, the same is not admissible.

"…newspaper report by itself does not constitute evidence of the contents of it. The reports are only hearsay evidence. They have to be proved either by the production of the reporter who heard the said statements and sent them for reporting or by the production of a report sent by such reporter and production of the Editor of the newspaper or its publisher to prove the said report," the Court further stressed.

In view of this, the Court observed that in the plea/complaint, the only evidence relied upon is the newspaper reporting and nothing else and since the same doesn't constitute "legal evidence", therefore, the same by itself cannot be held to admissible.

Apart from it, the Court also opined that the Court at Mau had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint as the alleged speech was given in Rajasthan's Alwar District and therefore, its dismissal was just and proper. Thus, the plea was dismissed.

Lastly, noting that the complainant/petitioner is an Advocate by profession, the Court imposed a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- on him to be paid within 30 days from today in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for utilization therein. The cost was imposed as the Court opined that the petitioner had abused the process of the Court.

Case title - Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 452

Click Here To Read/Download Order