Abbas Ansari Should've Shown Restraint, But Refusal To Stay Conviction Unfair To Voters: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief In Hate Speech Case
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday stayed the conviction of gangster-turned-politician late Mukhtar Ansari's son and disqualified MLA Abbas Ansari, in connection with the 'Hisab-Kitab' hate speech case of 2022.Ansari, elected from the Mau Constituency of Uttar Pradesh, made a speech during a rally in 2022, allegedly threatening government officials with payback if the SP-SBSP alliance...
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday stayed the conviction of gangster-turned-politician late Mukhtar Ansari's son and disqualified MLA Abbas Ansari, in connection with the 'Hisab-Kitab' hate speech case of 2022.
Ansari, elected from the Mau Constituency of Uttar Pradesh, made a speech during a rally in 2022, allegedly threatening government officials with payback if the SP-SBSP alliance formed the government in the state.
He had allegedly said, "I have told the Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav that after the formation of the government, there will be no transfers or postings for six months. Everyone will remain where they are. First, there will be 'Hisab-Kitab'; only then will transfers take place."
He was convicted for offences under sections 171F (undue influence during election), 189 (threatening a public servant), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc.), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC, till the disposal of the appeal by the Sessions Court.
While suspending the conviction, Justice Sameer Jain observed,
“revisionist was a public representative and was a sitting MLA and at the time of election he was delivering the speech and although being MLA, he should restraint himself but merely on delivering such speech (details of which have already given in preceding paras) refusal to stay his conviction in view of this Court amounts to injustice not only to the revisionist but also to the electorate who elected him. It appears, while refusing the prayer to stay the conviction, appellate court did not consider this aspect.”
Since he was awarded imprisonment for 2 years for offences under Section 153A and 189 IPC, he was disqualified as an MLA under Section 8, Representation of People Act 1951.
Abbas Ansari had filed a criminal appeal before sessions court with a prayer to suspend/ stay the sentence and his conviction while the appeal was pending. Though the sentence was suspended, the prayer for staying his conviction was rejected. Accordingly, he approached the High Court.
With the stay on conviction, Ansari's assembly membership will be reinstated.
In its order, the High Court observed that the only evidence against Ansari was a speech whereby he threatened the district administration regarding elections and prima facie, the offence under Section 153A IPC was not made out.
Similarly, it held that the offence under Section 171F IPC was also not made out by the Court.
The Court further held that the speech did not show that Ansari was giving any threat of injury to public servant to attract punishment under Section 189 IPC. It held that the Trail Court's order of conviction did not reflect the reason for awarding maximum punishment of 2 years to the revisionist under Section 189.
“..revisionist was a sitting MLA and due to his conviction in the present matter, he has been disqualified, and therefore, at one hand, his conviction deprived his constituency from legitimate representation and on the other hand, it also restrained the revisionist to represent his constituency, therefore, it cannot be said that the conviction of the revisionist does not cause any irreversible consequence.”
Holding that the far reaching consequence of the conviction included his disbarment from participating in future elections, the Court held that here the stay should not have been refused.
“Further, however, the purpose of introduction of Section 8 R.P. Act is to resolve the issue of criminalization of politics and to depoliticizing criminality but while deciding the issue at hand, it is also necessary to consider the other facts and circumstances of the case like what are the actual allegations against the person who has been disqualified due to his conviction and whether his criminal antecedents of such nature which threatens the very idea of democracy.”
Accordingly, quashing the order of the Appellate Court, the Court suspended the conviction order till the decision in his appeal. While parting, the Court observed that the observations made by it shall not influence the appellate court.