New Delhi/ Madura: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a PIL which referred to actor-cum-politician Kamal Haasan's remark about Mahatma Gandhi's assassin being a Hindu terrorist and had sought directions to the Election Commission (EC) to "restrict" misuse of religion for poll gains.
A bench of Justices G S Sistani and Jyoti Singh said the cause of action for the PIL by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay was the remarks by Haasan which was made outside the jurisdiction of the high court here and therefore, it cannot hear it. The court, however, asked the EC to expeditiously decide Upadhyay's representation against Haasan's remark.
The petition, filed by Upadhyay, has also sought debarring of candidates and deregistration of parties that "misuse" religion for electoral gains.
Upadhyay, also a lawyer, has alleged that Haasan "deliberately" made the statement in the presence of a Muslim majority crowd for electoral gain. The petition contends that this was clearly a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1951.
Haasan, the president of Makkal Needhi Maiam, had in an election rally speech for his party candidate on Sunday termed Mahatma Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse as independent India's first "Hindu terrorist". He had made the comment while speaking at an election rally on Sunday for his party candidate in Aravakurichi Assembly constituency, where by-polls will be held on May 19, the petition has said.
Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan on Wednesday filed an anticipatory bail petition before the Madras High Court, saying his speech was about Nathuram Godse only and not about Hindus as a whole. Haasan moved the plea after the court earlier refused to quash an FIR against him, saying such pleas cannot be taken up as emergent petitions during the vacation and that if an anticipatory bail application was filed it could be taken up for hearing. The FIR registered was against him over his "free India's first extremist was a Hindu" remark made during an election meeting in the Aravkurichi Assembly constituency on Sunday last.
In his plea, he said the offence quoted in the FIR under Sections 153(A) and 295(A) of IPC required procedural safety under CrPC and the same had been overlooked.