Patna High Court quashes case against Navjot Singh Sidhu for appealing to Muslims to vote en masse for Congress

The Patna High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Congress leader and former India cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu for allegedly appealing for votes on religious grounds during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections [Navjot Singh Sidhu v The State of Bihar & Anr]..Justice Sandeep Kumar concluded that Sidhu had only said that All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Chief Asaduddin Owaisi was trying to divide Muslim votes.Sidhu had not made any statement prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or said something that was likely to disturb the public tranquility, the Court found. “From the content of the speech, it does not appear that the petitioner has tried to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between two classes of people or two religions but in fact he has only said that Mr. Owaisi was trying to divide the votes of Muslim,” the Court opined..The Court added that Sidhu’s statement did not depict any communal tension or violence but only cautioned the Muslim community about dividing their votes at the behest of Owaisi.In this backdrop, the Court rejected the allegation that Sidhu had demanded votes in the name of religion. .The case related to comments made by Sidhu in April 2019 during election campaigns. Sidhu is reported to have appealed to Muslim voters to vote for the Congress en bloc in order to defeat the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during the 2019 general elections and not split their votes by voting for Owaisi. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered for these comments on April 16, 2019 against Sidhu by the Bihar Police under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of People Act (RP Act). Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed and the trial court took cognizance of the offences alleged against Sidhu.Sidhu challenged these proceedings before the High Court and contended that he was falsely implicated in the case only due to political rivalry. However, the State argued that since a prima facie case was made out against him, the prosecution cannot be quashed at the stage of cognizance..Concluding no appeal on religious grounds had been made by Sidhu, the High Court held that he cannot be prosecuted under Section 123(3) of the RP Act. On the charge under Section 125 of RP Act on promoting religious hatred in connection with elections, the Court said:“In the opinion of this Court, the ingredients of Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act are not made out against the petitioner as the statements have not been made to promote or attempting to promote on grounds of religions, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India.”Regarding the allegation that Sidhu had violated Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC by flouting restraining orders while making an appeal for votes on religious grounds, the Court noted that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) restricts a Magistrate from accepting a written complaint from any person, other than the public servant who issued the order or someone superior to him. It found that the informant, an Assistant Engineer of Rural Works Department, was not and did not even claim to be the Public Servant who lawfully promulgated the order. It further noted that he is not even an officer administratively superior to the concerned public servant.“The provisions of Section 195 of the CrPC are mandatory and the non-compliance of these provisions would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders/ proceedings. Since the complaint has been filed against the mandatory provision of Section 195(1) CrPC, all subsequent action shall be held to be illegal i.e., the investigation and the cognizance pursuant to the registration of the FIR,” the Court said..The Court also opined that summons issued by the trial court was without any application of mind and without following the law laid down by the Supreme Court.“The summons have been issued mechanically by a cryptic and non speaking order and therefore, the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 12.10.2020 cannot be sustained,” it added..Thus, the Court quashed the order taking cognizance as well as the summons to Sidhu. The entire prosecution was, accordingly, quashed..Senior Advocate Ramakant Sharma with Advocate Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Santosh Kumar Pandey and Amresh Kumar represented Navjot Singh Sidhu.Additional Public Prosecutor Jharkhandi Upadhyay represented the State..[Read Judgment]