New Delhi: In a relief to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti, a Delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet filed against him in a case related to alleged misconduct at a polling station. The court held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against Bharti, dismissing allegations of violating polling rules.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal ruled on February 11 that carrying mobile phones, videography, or photography at a polling station would only constitute an offence if it compromised the secrecy of the voting process. The court observed that the video footage submitted by the prosecution was recorded outside the polling station, and none of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were visible in it.
According to the prosecution, Bharti and his associates allegedly entered a polling area on May 25, 2024, filmed the polling process, and searched polythene packets belonging to polling agents. After being removed, they reportedly returned to the polling booth, which the prosecution argued was punishable under the law.
However, the court found that the video was taken in the polling premises and not inside the polling station itself, dismissing the allegations of criminal liability. “The video that has been placed on record by the prosecution is not of the polling station but of the polling premises. None of the EVMs can be seen in the video. Thus, by making the aforesaid video, the accused persons cannot be made criminally liable,” the court stated.
The judge clarified that while Bharti’s actions may warrant administrative action, such as the seizure of his mobile phone by the presiding officer, they did not constitute a criminal offence. Regarding the accusation that Bharti and others re-entered the polling booth after being removed, the court noted that the chargesheet did not establish that they had entered the same booth again.
“There does not exist sufficient ground for taking cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 132 of The Representation of People Act. No other offence appears to be made out from the chargesheet. Accordingly, cognisance in the present case is declined,” the court ruled.
