Court declines cognisance of charges against Bharti

New Delhi: A Delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet filed against former Delhi minister and Aam Aadmi Party ( AAP ) functionary Somnath Bharti in connection with a case related to misconduct at a polling station. In an order dated Feb 11, the court of additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal stated that carrying cellphones or engaging in videography or photography at a polling station would only constitute an offense if it compromised the secrecy of the voting process. According to the prosecution, Bharti, along with his associates, entered a polling area on May 25, 2024, and filmed the election process. They also searched the polythene packets of polling agents. After being removed from the area, they allegedly returned to the polling booth, which is punishable under the law, the prosecution claims. An FIR was filed at the south campus police station in May 2024, alleging that the accused, including Bharti, entered two polling stations, and one of Bharti's associates recorded the voting process during the 2024 Lok Sabha election. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against Bharti and his associate Anshul for committing an offense under Section 132 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 (RP Act). The court remarked that the videos presented by the prosecution were not of significant value. The only video that could have been retrieved by the investigating agency through FSL was recorded outside the polling station, failing to establish any criminal activity on the part of the accused. The court further noted that carrying a mobile phone, filming, or taking photographs at a polling station would only constitute an offense if it compromised the secrecy of voting. Voters and others are strictly prohibited from carrying mobile phones inside polling stations to preserve the fairness and integrity of the electoral process. This restriction is intended to prevent any potential interference or influence on voters' decisions. The video provided by the prosecution, however, was filmed outside the polling station, not inside the actual polling booth. "The video submitted by the prosecution was not taken inside the polling station but on the premises. None of the EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) are visible in the video. Therefore, the accused persons cannot be held criminally liable for making this video," the court stated. However, the court noted that appropriate action, including the seizure of mobile phones, could be taken against the accused by the presiding officer or other relevant authorities for violating the rules related to mobile phones inside polling premises. Regarding the allegation that Bharti and his associates returned to the polling booth, the court observed that the chargesheet indicated the accused did not re-enter the same booth. The court concluded, "There is insufficient ground to take cognizance of the offense punishable under Section 132 of the Representation of the People Act. No other offense appears to have been established based on the chargesheet. Accordingly, cognizance is declined in this case."