'Hisab-Kitab' Case | 'No Place For Hate Or Provocative Speech In Politics; It Harms Nation & Society': UP Court Convicts Abbas Ansari

Sentencing him to 2 years in jail, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mau, KP Singh further said that in a diverse country like India, such speeches harm the nation and society and after winning the election, such public representatives will waste all their time in teaching a lesson to the opposition, which has no place in democracy and society and is not acceptable.

For context, the case against Ansari pertained to a statement he made, threatening government officials with payback at an election rally in Mau district in March 2022, if the SP-SBSP alliance formed the government in the state.

In the said remark, he had stated: "सपा मुखिया अखिलेश यादव से कहकर आया हूं, सरकार बनने के बाद छह महीने तक किसी की ट्रांसफर-पोस्टिंग नहीं होगी। जो जहां है, वही रहेगा। पहले हिसाब-किताब होगा। फिर ट्रांसफर होगा।" [Translation : 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.]

It was alleged that due to his remark, there was a possibility of the communal harmony getting disturbed between the two communities, and the election model code of conduct was also violated by him.

Thus, Ansari was booked under Sections 506 [Punishment for criminal intimidation], 171F [Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election], 186 [Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions], 189 [Threat of injury to public servan], 153A [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence. language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony] and 120B [Punishment of criminal conspiracy] of IPC.

Following a trial in the case, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the case against Ansari and Mansoor Ansari, beyond a reasonable doubt and no contrary evidence had been produced by the defence side which could cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

Though Ansari sought his release on probation, the defence cited the serious criminal history against the accused. Thus, the Court noted that if it gets lenient in giving punishment in the case, it would 'boost the morale' of those people who consider electoral rivalry as personal enmity and try to spoil the social harmony, due to which the common people have to suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

Furthermore, the court also noted that Ansari had been found guilty of delivering provocative speech, which is a serious offence. It said:

“संविधान हमें अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार देता है, लेकिन यह अधिकार असीमित नहीं है। कोई कही भी, कभी भी, कुछ भी नहीं बोल सकता है। राजनैतिक क्षेत्र जैसे लोक सेवा में नफरत या भङकाऊ भाषण की कोई जगह नही है और यह गम्भीर हो जाता है जब आशय धर्म के आधार पर अब्यवस्था करके चुनाव को प्रत्यक्ष एवं अप्रत्यक्ष रुप से प्रभावित करने की हो। यदि जिले में नियुक्त उच्चधिकारियों को जो आचार संहिता के समय चुनाव आयोग के सीधे नियन्त्रण में होते हैं को चुनाव वाद रोककर हिसाब-किताब किये जाने की धमकी दी जाती है तो निश्चित रुप से अप्रत्यक्ष रुप से मतदाताओं के मन में भी डर का भाव पैदा कराना है।” [Translation : The Constitution grants us the right to freedom of expression, but this right is not unlimited. No one can say anything, anywhere, anytime. There is no place for hate or provocative speech in the political field, and it becomes serious when the intention is to create disorder on the basis of religion and thus, influencing elections directly or indirectly. If senior officials appointed in the district, who are under the direct control of the Election Commission during the Model Code of Conduct period, are threatened with paybacks, then it certainly creates an indirect sense of fear among the voters as well.]

Against this backdrop, and taking into account his as well as his family members' criminal history and the fact that he delivered a speech from a public platform threatening the state government officials with payback after the election, which could have disturbed communal harmony, the Court refused to grant him any leniency in the punishment.

Thus, he was sentenced to 2 years in prison, and his brother was sentenced to 6 months in prison. Following his conviction, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Secretariat declared his Assembly seat, Mau Sadar, vacant.