HC suspends conviction of Abbas Ansari in hate speech case: ‘refusal to do so also amounts to injustice to his electorate'

Indian Express

19 hours ago

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday suspended the conviction of Abbas Ansari, the son of gangster-politician Mukhtar Abbas Ansari, in a three-year-old hate speech case, saying 'refusal to stay his conviction amounts to injustice not only to him but also to the electorate which elected him'.
Abbas Ansari, who was elected from the Mau Assembly seat in 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections, was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment in May this year, leading to his disqualification from the membership of the House.
The 33-year-old was booked on March 3, 2022, for his campaign speech in which he had allegedly threatened to 'teach a lesson' to the administrative officials of Mau after the elections.
On May 31 this year, a court in Mau convicted him and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment, leading to his disqualification from the UP Assembly. He then challenged the order in the sessions court, which on July 5 stayed the sentence but declined to stay the conviction. He then appealed in the Allahabad High Court.
In his order, Justice Sameer Jain of the Allahabad High Court cited the 2024 Supreme Court order against disqualifaction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi (Rahul Gandhi Vs Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2024), saying 'disqualification of a person not only affect the right of public representative to continue in the public life but also affect the right of electorate who have elected him to represent their constituency'.
'… (Abbas Ansari) was a sitting MLA and at the time of election he was delivering the speech, and although being an MLA, he should restraint himself but merely on delivering such speech… refusal to stay his conviction in view of this Court amounts to injustice not only to the revisionist (Ansari) but also to the electorate who elected him. It appears, while refusing the prayer to stay the conviction, appellate court (sessions court) did not consider this aspect,' the order stated.
'Further, non-suspending the conviction… indicates far-reaching consequences… He not only remained disqualified, but also remained disqualified to contest the future election,' the court said.
The order further stated that the purpose of the introduction of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 'is to resolve the issue of criminalisation of politics and to depoliticising criminality.' '…but while deciding the issue at hand, it is also necessary to consider the other facts and circumstances of the case like what are the actual allegations against the person who has been disqualified due to his conviction and whether his criminal antecedents of such nature which threatens the very idea of democracy,' Justice Jain added in the order.
Setting aside the July order of the sessions court, Justice Jain in his order said: 'Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the political background of the revisionist and his family, facts of the present case and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that it is not a case in which prayer to suspend the conviction of the revisionist should be refused.'
'…the impugned order dated 5.7.2025 passed by learned appellate court is illegal and is liable to be set aside… The conviction order passed by trial court against the revisionist (Abbas Ansari) shall remain suspended during the pendency of his appeal before the appellate court,' the High Court ordered, adding, 'the instant revision filed by revisionist (Abbas Ansari) stands allowed'.
The High Court also made it clear that the observation made by his court was only for the purpose whether the conviction order can be stayed or not during the pendency of the appeal. 'The appellate court shall not be influenced from any observation made in this order and shall decide the appeal of the revisionist independently in accordance with law,' the High Court added.
In his revision petition filed in the High Court, Abbas Ansari submitted that due to the conviction order passed by the trial court, he has been disqualified as a sitting MLA, and therefore, the case fell under the category of 'rare and exceptional' cases. He argued that the appellate (sessions) court should have stayed his conviction order, but the 'learned appellate court refused to stay the conviction and therefore committed gross illegality'.
He also submitted that due to the refusal of the appellate court in granting a stay on his conviction, his entire political career was adversely affected.
He also added that due to his conviction, he has also been disqualified from contesting elections for six years.
In his petition before the High Court, Ansari stated that out of 11 cases, proceedings of three cases have been quashed, including a case related to the UP Gangsters Act, and in another case he was convicted, but granted bail, and his appeal is pending.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the UP governmnent vehemently opposed his plea and submitted that Ansari committed offences under sections 171 F, 153A and 189 of the IPC, and 'considering the entire evidence produced by prosecution, prima facie, it cannot be said that the trial court wrongly convicted him'.
Abbas's younger brother, Umar Ansari, who is also an accused in the same case, is pending in the court.