SC prolongs stay of proceedings against Kejriwal in Uttar Pradesh for violating the 2014 election code

In a lawsuit brought against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly uttering offensive comments against the BJP and the Congress in Uttar Pradesh during the 2014 Lok Sabha election campaign, the Supreme Court on Tuesday extended its temporary stay of proceedings.

Kejriwal has petitioned the supreme court to overturn a judgment from the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench that denied him acquittal in the criminal case that was still pending in a Sultanpur trial court.

Kejriwal filed an appeal, and a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and S V N Bhatti decided to hear it.

“Enforce the temporary order. What does all of this mean? All of them are unimportant topics. It’s not something we should discuss,” the bench said.

Section 125 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951 charges Kejriwal with inciting class conflict in relation to elections.

He was said to have said on May 2, 2014, while on the campaigning period, “Jo Congress ko vote dega, mera manana hoga, desh ke saath gaddari hogi Joh Bhajapa (BJP) ko vote dega use khuda bhi maaf nahin karega (Those who will vote for the Congress will be betraying the nation, and god will not forgive those who will vote for the BJP).”

The argument argued that Kejriwal had just mentioned a political party and had not made any references to religion or caste, and that under Section 125 of the RP Act, a political party cannot be regarded as a class of persons.

In his appeal before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal said that the petition raises a number of significant legal issues, such as whether it is possible to establish a case under Section 125 in the absence of a complete transcript or video clip of the purported statement he delivered.

Despite the complaint just alleging a breach of the Model Code of Conduct, the police filed a formal report the same day, according to the petition.

According to Kejriwal, this was carried out without a separate police investigation.

The plea presented demonstrates the police’s “biasness and the action taken post-haste” in a clear and concise manner.