Photo: PTI
The Delhi High Court asked a trial court to postpone its hearing in a case involving Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra, which stems from a 2020 FIR over his tweets allegedly accusing AAP and Congress of turning Shaheen Bagh into a “Mini Pakistan” during protests against the NRC and CAA.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja requested the trial court to delay arguments on the framing of charges, which were scheduled for Friday, until after the High Court’s next hearing on the matter, set for October 13.
Earlier, Mishra had approached the High Court challenging the summons issued to him by a magistrate's court under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with promoting enmity between groups in connection with elections.
In his latest application, Mishra has also sought a stay on the trial, arguing that some of the documents supplied by the prosecution were “incomprehensible” and required further clarification before proceedings could continue, the Indian Express reported.
In 2020, Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra faced allegations of making objectionable remarks on electronic media, including statements such as “mini-Pakistans are forming in Delhi” and “Pakistan has entered Shaheen Bagh.” The case also involves one of his tweets in which he suggested that there would be an “India vs Pakistan” contest on the streets of Delhi on February 8, the day of the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections.
Back in March, Mishra had sought a stay on trial proceedings until the Delhi High Court heard his challenge to the summons issued in connection with the case, arguing that framing charges could harm his reputation. However, Justice Ravinder Dudeja at the time refused to grant a stay and clarified that the trial court was free to continue proceedings.
The police later submitted a second supplementary chargesheet on July 5 and a third on August 1, stating that their investigation was complete.
These documents included fresh evidence related to Mishra’s X (formerly Twitter) account, which the platform had provided via a single URL to access and download the relevant files. The downloaded data was attached to the supplementary chargesheet.
However, Mishra has claimed that the files are “incomprehensible.” Taking note of this, the court, while deferring the trial, observed that since the documents were difficult to interpret, the prosecution must provide Mishra with clearly interpreted copies before arguments on framing charges begin. It also warned that failing to do so could affect the validity of the trial.