Delhi Court Declines Cognizance in Case Against AAP Leader Somnath Bharti

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has declined to take cognizance of the charge sheet filed against AAP leader Somnath Bharti and another accused under Section 132 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal offense, thereby dismissing the prosecution’s case.

This decision comes after an FIR was registered at the South Campus Police Station in May 2024, alleging that Bharti and his associates entered polling locations and recorded poll procedures during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Background of the Case

FIR & Allegations

🔹 The FIR was lodged based on two complaints from Presiding Officers of Polling Stations-12 & 14, who alleged that:
✔️ Somnath Bharti and his supporters entered the polling locations while hiding their mobile phones.
✔️ An accused, Anshul, videographed the poll procedure at one station.
✔️ Another woman searched the polythene packets of polling agents.
✔️ Three mobile phones were seized by Sub-Inspector Giriraj after the accused allegedly moved to Polling Station-14.

🔹 Investigation Findings
✔️ During the investigation, a 9-second video (recorded outside the polling station at 2:33 PM on May 25, 2024) was retrieved from a mobile phone.
✔️ The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) could not access other videos as the phones were password-protected and their tools lacked the ability to unlock them.
✔️ The charge sheet was filed against Somnath Bharti and Anshul under Section 132 of the RP Act.

Court’s Analysis & Decision

Why the Court Declined Cognizance

🔹 No Re-Entry into Polling Station
✔️ As per Section 132(3) of the RP Act, an offense is committed only if a person who was removed from a polling station re-enters it without permission.
✔️ The prosecution failed to establish that the accused re-entered Polling Station-12 or 14 after removal.

🔹 Videos Did Not Show Criminality
✔️ The only retrievable video was recorded outside the polling station and did not compromise voting secrecy.
✔️ The prosecution could not access other videos due to password protection, and the court ruled that Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects the accused from being forced to disclose passwords.

🔹 Lack of Evidence of Electoral Offense
✔️ Carrying a mobile phone or videography inside a polling station is not automatically a criminal offense, unless it compromises vote secrecy.
✔️ Since no EVMs were visible in the video, the court did not find evidence of a criminal act.

Key Court Observations

✅ No grounds to take cognizance under Section 132 of the RP Act.
✅ No other offense was established from the charge sheet.
✅ The video evidence was insufficient to prove misconduct.
✅ The accused cannot be forced to provide mobile passwords due to constitutional protections.

The court dismissed the case, stating that while administrative action (such as mobile phone seizure) could be taken by polling officers, no criminal liability could be imposed.

Legal & Political Implications

For Election Laws

🔹 The ruling clarifies the interpretation of Section 132 of the RP Act, reinforcing that:
✔️ Unauthorized entry must be proven for prosecution.
✔️ Videography alone is not a criminal offense, unless it compromises electoral secrecy.

For Political Impact

🔹 The ruling is a relief for Somnath Bharti and the AAP as it removes legal hurdles that could have affected his political career.
🔹 It also sets a precedent for similar cases involving election-related allegations.

Conclusion

The Delhi court’s decision to decline cognizance of the case against AAP leader Somnath Bharti marks an important precedent in election-related legal matters. The ruling highlights the importance of concrete evidence in electoral misconduct cases and reinforces constitutional protections for accused persons.

With no criminal offense established, the case has been closed, reaffirming that only substantial legal grounds can justify election-related prosecutions.

Search This Blog

LawLoveLegal