Modi selfie case hearing on Oct 23
The date has been fixed for further hearing on the alleged poll code breach by PM Modi. The matter was placed before the court on 8 October and the court adjourned after public prosecutor Mitesh Amin and petitioner Nishant Varma's counsel K R Koshti apprised the court of the case history. Justice Pardiwala said that the case will be finally heard on 23 October.
Modi displayed his party's symbol and delivered a political speech outside a polling station in Ahmedabad violating the poll code. Election Commission asked the Ahmedabad Crime Branch to file a FIR against him under the provisions of Sections 126(1)(a) and 126(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. A FIR was also filed against TV channels who carried the images of the meeting.
The election poll code says no person can convene, hold or attend any public meeting in connection with an election during the polling. Any violation of this provision is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
The Ahmedabad Crime Branch gave a clean chit to PM Modi in the alleged poll code violation case. A closure report was filed by the investigative agency before the metropolitan court saying that no case was made out against Modi. The report said that the investigating agency had not found any evidence against the accused for which he could be prosecuted.
A magistrate court accepted the Ahmedabad Crime Branch's closure report and dropped proceedings against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Magistrate M H Patel accepted the statements of media persons and BJP leaders. Their position was that the press conference took place at the request of media persons and it was an impromptu gathering and not a pre-arranged press conference or public meeting.
Gujarat High Court accepted the complaint filed by AAP worker Nishant alleging PM Modi of breaching the poll code by clicking a selfie outside a poll-station. The complaint challenged the closure report filed by Crime Branch which had given Modi a clean chit. Justice Udhwani had kept the further hearing on October 6, when the state government would be expected to argue its case.
The public prosecutor sought a short date since the Advocate General was not available. When the matter was placed before Justice Udhvani, he recused himself by saying 'not before me' from hearing the petition due to a conflict of interest. The matter has been referred to the acting Chief Justice to decide the bench before which the matter will be placed.
