The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking to disqualify Prime Minister Narendra Modi from electoral contests, emphasizing concerns over the mental health of the petitioner, Captain Deepak Kumar. The court’s decision, delivered on Wednesday, highlighted the incoherence and baseless nature of Kumar’s allegations.
Kumar had filed a petition targeting Modi’s candidacy for the Varanasi constituency in the 2024 general elections. He alleged that Modi, along with Home Minister Amit Shah and former Minister of Communications Jyotiraditya Scindia, had taken false oaths of allegiance to the Indian Constitution. Kumar sought an investigation into these allegations, which he claimed could lead to Modi’s disqualification from public office if proven true.
The petition read, “The Candidate for Varanasi constituency for the 2024 general elections, Narendra Modi, had submitted a false oath or affirmation to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.” Kumar’s plea included serious claims against Modi, Shah, and Scindia, suggesting they were part of a broader criminal conspiracy detrimental to Indian society. He argued that these individuals should be declared unqualified for office due to the alleged false oaths.
However, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed severe doubts regarding the credibility and coherence of Kumar’s petition. The judges noted that the petition was replete with unsubstantiated and wildly varying allegations, which included bizarre claims of life threats orchestrated by a former Chief Justice of India.
The Bench remarked, “Are you well? Your petition is incoherent. It is going from one end of the spectrum to the other. It is going from saying that the plane you were flying crashed to your daughter being missing to a former CJI trying to kill you. Are you well? No human being can understand the petition. It makes no sense, and the single judge is right in saying that it is replete with unsubstantiated allegations.”
In their ruling, the court found Kumar’s claims to be baseless and lacking any factual support, leading them to dismiss the petition as preposterous. The judges’ comments underscored their concern about the petitioner’s mental state, suggesting that his claims were disconnected from reality.
The dismissal of the plea reflects the court’s focus on ensuring that legal proceedings are based on credible and substantiated claims. The judges’ remarks also highlighted the importance of maintaining a clear and rational basis for legal challenges, especially those targeting high-profile public figures.
This decision marks a significant moment in the legal scrutiny of electoral candidates and the challenges they may face. The court’s dismissal of Kumar’s plea reaffirms the need for allegations against public officials to be grounded in fact and presented in a coherent manner.
As the 2024 general elections approach, the dismissal of this plea also underscores the legal and procedural challenges that can arise in the context of high-stakes electoral politics. It serves as a reminder of the judicial system’s role in addressing frivolous or baseless claims while maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
In summary, the Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss Captain Deepak Kumar’s plea against Prime Minister Narendra Modi reflects concerns about the petitioner’s mental health and the incoherence of his claims. The ruling reinforces the importance of substantive evidence and rationality in legal challenges, particularly those involving prominent public figures.