Delhi Court dismisses plea to register FIR against Rahul Gandhi for speech on surgical strikesNovember 23 2019
The Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Rouse Avenue Court Complex today dismissed a plea seeking registration of FIR against Congress President Rahul Gandhi for making allegedly seditious statements in the aftermath of the 2016 surgical strikes.
The order was pronounced by Judge Vishal Pahua.
The plea was moved by Advocate Joginder Tuli.
In his complaint, Tuli had alleged that defamatory and seditious statements were made by Rahul Gandhi in a speech on October 6, 2016, at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. As per the application,
“..on the said date, Sh. Rahul Gandhi made a statement in the said meeting against Prime Minister Sh. Narendra Modi accusing him of hiding behind the blood of soldiers and doing dalali (cashing in) on their sacrifice…Relevant extracts of his statement are reproduced as under:
Jo Hamare jawan hai, jinhone apna khoon diya hai Jammu Kashmir main…jinhone Hindustan ke liye surgical strike kiya hia, unke khoon ke peeche aap chhupe hue ho. Unki dalali kar rahe ho. Ye bikul galat hai. (Our soldiers who have shed their blood in Jammu and Kashmir, who have conducted the surgical strikes, you are hiding behind their blood. You are cashing in on their sacrifice, that’s wrong).”
It was Tuli’s grievance that the DCP (New Delhi) and SHO, Parliament Street refused not to register an FIR against Rahul Gandhi on the basis of the complaint.
Arguing before the Court, Tuli had earlier submitted that Gandhi’s statements resulted in dissatisfaction amongst army and paramilitary forces. It was also argued that Gandhi was using the sacrifices of army personnel for political gain.
The Delhi Police, on the other hand, had maintained that no cognizable offence was made out in the sedition complaint against Gandhi for his speech.
As far as the insult to PM Modi was concerned, the Delhi Police stated that a defamation case could be initiated by the person against whom such an insult/statement was directed.
The matter was earlier heard and reserved for orders by Judge Pahuja's predecessor, Judge Samar Vishal.
After Judge Pahuja took charge of the Court, the matter was reheard by him.
With a premium account you get:
- One year of unrestrcited access to previous interviews, columns and articles
- One year access to all archival material
- Access to all Bar & Bench reports