NEW DELHI: The Election Commission has asked the Gujarat chief electoral officer for a report on the matter relating to the recent arrest of Trinamool Congress spokesperson Saket Gokhale by the Morbi police under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Gokhale was arrested shortly after he got bail in a related case, also registered in Gujarat, relating to allegedly fake news tweeted by him on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Morbi after the bridge collapse.
The EC called for the report soon after a Trinamool Congress delegation led by party MP Saugata Ray met the commission here to protest Gokhale’s arrest under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. They termed the arrest as “harrassment,” saying that the relevant provision was not attracted by Gokhale’s tweet.
An election law expert told TOI that, prime facie, invoking Section 125 of R P Act — which relates to promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election — may not have been justified. “Rather, Gokhale’s tweet could attract provisions relating to fake news, forgery or even attempt to misguide the voter,” the expert said, adding that it was for the court to rule on applicability of Section 125 of R P Act.
TOI has learnt that EC had no role in filing of the FIR against Gokhale under R P Act. The case was registered by the Morbi police on their own, as they are competent to do.
The original FIR registered by the Gujarat police in wake of Gokhale’s December 1 tweet — that put out a news clipping based on an RTI reply, stating that Modi’s visit to Morbi after the bridge collapse had cost Rs 30 crore — had invoked IPC Sections 465, 469, 471 (all relating to forgery) and 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory). PIB later tweeted a ‘fact check’, saying that the information was fake and that no such RTI reply had been issued.
The EC called for the report soon after a Trinamool Congress delegation led by party MP Saugata Ray met the commission here to protest Gokhale’s arrest under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. They termed the arrest as “harrassment,” saying that the relevant provision was not attracted by Gokhale’s tweet.
An election law expert told TOI that, prime facie, invoking Section 125 of R P Act — which relates to promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election — may not have been justified. “Rather, Gokhale’s tweet could attract provisions relating to fake news, forgery or even attempt to misguide the voter,” the expert said, adding that it was for the court to rule on applicability of Section 125 of R P Act.
TOI has learnt that EC had no role in filing of the FIR against Gokhale under R P Act. The case was registered by the Morbi police on their own, as they are competent to do.
The original FIR registered by the Gujarat police in wake of Gokhale’s December 1 tweet — that put out a news clipping based on an RTI reply, stating that Modi’s visit to Morbi after the bridge collapse had cost Rs 30 crore — had invoked IPC Sections 465, 469, 471 (all relating to forgery) and 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory). PIB later tweeted a ‘fact check’, saying that the information was fake and that no such RTI reply had been issued.