Lucknow: Senior Samajwadi Celebration (SP) chief Azam Khan didn’t make any assertion that would incite enmity between two communities on the premise of faith, origin, birthplace, language, and so on, or have an antagonistic impact on communal concord, famous the courtroom of Rampur extra classes choose earlier this week, acquitting the previous MP in a 2019 hate speech case.
Further classes choose (MP/MLA courtroom) Amit Veer Singh known as the 2022 judgment of a decrease courtroom convicting Khan “unlawful” and primarily based on “non-admissible proof”.
He mentioned two authorities officers posted in Rampur on the time of the alleged incident, who testified as prosecution witnesses, admitted to a dispute between the then district Justice of the Peace (DM) Aunjaneya Kumar Singh and Azam Khan. He added that the DM had acquired the grievance lodged towards Khan after pressuring one of many officers.
In its order issued Wednesday, the courtroom mentioned the decrease courtroom had not thought of Part 65B of the Proof Act (specifies the necessities for the admissibility of digital data as proof in authorized proceedings). It cited two earlier circumstances within the Supreme Court docket the place the latter held that any digital proof — saved in CDs, VCDs, chips — will need to have a certificates beneath Part 65B of the Proof Act, 1872, for it to be admissible in courtroom.
It additional acknowledged that the prosecution facet didn’t attempt to set up essential digital proof beneath the related Act.
“The FIR (First Data Report) was lodged by reducing and enhancing some parts of the speech and never the whole transcript of the speech. Attributable to this, there can’t be substance for against the law towards the accused by becoming a member of some parts of a speech and merely as a result of this reality, the premise of the prosecution’s case fails to carry,” it mentioned.
Azam was booked beneath IPC Sections 153 (provocation whereas figuring out it could trigger riots), 505 (1) (b) (inflicting alarm which will provoke somebody to behave towards State) and Part 125 of the Illustration of the Folks Act, 1951 (selling enmity between courses in reference to election) in April 2019. The idea was a speech, the place he had allegedly talked about CM Yogi Adityanath, the then Rampur DM Aunjaneya Kumar Singh and PM Narendra Modi, that went viral within the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
In October final yr, an MP/MLA courtroom sentenced the SP veteran to three-year imprisonment after convicting him. A day after the conviction, the UP meeting secretariat disqualified Khan and declared the Rampur meeting seat vacant. A bypoll was held on the seat in 2022 and the BJP’s Akash Saxena gained it.
Khan was disqualified on the premise of a 2013 Supreme Court docket judgment {that a} convicted legislator sentenced to at the very least two years of imprisonment will lose their Home membership with quick impact.
Following Khan’s acquittal, his authorized crew is exploring if there’s a authorized recourse obtainable for the chief to reclaim his meeting membership.
Talking to ThePrint, his advocate Vinod Sharma mentioned that the function of the trial courtroom was restricted to conviction or acquittal, and that the disqualification was primarily based on a Supreme Court docket judgment. “It’s for the Election Fee to resolve in regards to the membership of the UP meeting,” he mentioned.
On the query of whether or not Khan can reclaim his seat, authorized consultants answered within the detrimental. Supreme Court docket advocate Rakesh Dwivedi defined that since elections have been held following Khan’s disqualification and a consultant from that constituency is there within the meeting, the chief can’t reclaim his seat.
“The newly elected member’s election might be put aside solely via an election petition. Therefore, it isn’t legally potential for Khan to hunt that seat again,” Dwivedi mentioned.
Additionally learn: ‘Deity’s proper, nod to worship’ — the 8 Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi circumstances clubbed by Varanasi courtroom
‘Defective intention of accused not established’
The MP/MLA courtroom famous Wednesday {that a} detailed investigation established that defective intention of the accused couldn’t be established within the case.
It mentioned in regards to the decrease courtroom verdict that “the choice that has been given, has been delivered with none conclusion being drawn in regards to the mens rea (psychological state and intention behind the act) even because the detailed investigation establishes that no defective intention of the accused may very well be established by the prosecution”.
“The detailed investigation has additionally established that the accused didn’t make any assertion that would incite enmity between two communities… neither does the speech entail one thing that has the potential to trigger any worry among the many public that would incite it in the direction of against the law towards the State or public order,” it famous.
The courtroom added that the decrease courtroom drew its conclusion with out investigating the info earlier than it, and with out giving any purpose, which was “completely unlawful”.
On the testimonies of two authorities officers posted in Rampur on the time of the incident, the courtroom mentioned one among them had admitted to having prior details about a dispute between the then DM Kumar and Khan. The opposite official, mentioned the courtroom, had testified that the DM, who was additionally the district election officer, had pressured him to lodge a grievance towards Khan.
In his testimony, Chandrapal (goes solely by first identify), the then assistant improvement officer (ADO), panchayat, Shahabad block, had informed the courtroom, “Azam Khan, his spouse Tazeem Fatma and son Abdullah Azam and different Samajwadi Celebration representatives had given a number of complaints to the Election Fee, towards the then DM Rampur Aunjaneya Kumar. It’s appropriate that there was a dispute between Kumar and Azam Khan as a result of these complaints.”
The opposite official who testified was Anil Kumar Chauhan, ADO (agriculture safety), Shahabad.
The courtroom mentioned the then DM might have “taken civil or legal motion however reasonably than doing that, an FIR was lodged… at the same time as there isn’t a substance of the crime beneath IPC Sections 153 a, 505 (1) (b) and Part 125 of the Public Consultant Act (sic)”.
The courtroom concluded that not one of the admissible proof introduced by the prosecution facet can set up the info talked about within the FIR. “The proof is predicated on non-admissible proof,” it mentioned.
Manner ahead?
Zubair Ahmad, a senior advocate who has represented Khan in some circumstances, informed ThePrint over the cellphone that his consumer is reviewing the authorized treatments obtainable to him.
Nonetheless, different authorized consultants say there’s little that may be executed so far as restoring Khan’s meeting membership is anxious.
Kumar Mihir, a senior advocate practising within the Supreme Court docket, mentioned, “One other election (bypoll) has occurred and his vested proper has been taken away regardless of the pendency of the enchantment however there are little probabilities {that a} courtroom will now intrude with that election.”
He added, “He (Khan) can file a writ petition in search of that the EC declares the next election invalid and the speaker recognises him because the rightful MLA however courts are usually reluctant to intrude with the speaker. Additional, the brand new MLA will even should be heard. It’s uncertain that the identical will probably be overturned.”
A.P. Singh, a senior advocate within the Supreme Court docket, mentioned that he couldn’t recall any reportable judgment or precedent the place membership was restored in such a case.
S.N. Shukla, normal secretary of Lok Prahari — a lucknow-based society working within the space of public governance and administration — mentioned since Khan continues to be a convict in one other case, he continues to stay disqualified. Lok Prahari has filed many PILs within the high courtroom which have led to electoral reforms within the nation.
“If he was not dealing with every other conviction, his acquittal on this case would nonetheless not have resulted in him getting any proper to reclaim the misplaced seat. It’s because an elected consultant from that constituency is already there within the Home,” Shukla mentioned. The one profit that accrues for Khan, within the absence of every other conviction, is that he would be capable to combat elections, he added.
“Conviction ends in quick disqualification. Additional, it additionally bars a convicted chief to contest in elections for six years, from the date of the conviction. With an acquittal, the chief would now be eligible to combat elections. However this could solely occur if he’s acquitted within the different case — during which he’s convicted — as nicely,” Shukla clarified.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Additionally learn: How cut up in opposition votes helped BJP sweep UP mayor election. BSP largest loser in civic polls