Delhi High Court dismisses appeal filed against PM, Home Minister and Minister of Communications Alleging False Oaths and Anti-national Act of Terrorism

The appellant alleged that the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Minister of Communications have taken false oaths of allegiance to the Constitution of India, and they had attempted an antinational act of terrorism by attempting to kill the appellant as pilot-in-command of flight AI 459 on 08-07-2018.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed challenging the order dated 30-05-2024 passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the petition was replete with unsubstantiated and reckless allegations and tainted with malafides and oblique motives. A division bench of Manmohan, CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ., dismissed the appeal and directed the local SHO to monitor the appellant and take appropriate action if required in line with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The Court stated, “all the allegations in the appeal are a figment of appellant’s imagination, vague and bereft of any material particulars.”

The appellant leveled serious allegations against high-ranking government officials, including the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and Minister of Communications. The appellant claimed that these officials had taken false oaths of allegiance to the Constitution of India and had attempted an anti-national act of terrorism by attempting to kill him during his tenure as pilot-in-command of flight AI 459 on 08-07-2018. He further alleged that the Prime Minister was causing the destruction of CCTV footage of a simulator session at the Central Training Establishment of Air India on 19-10-2019. Additionally, the appellant accused these officials of abusing their power, leading to his social and economic boycott.

It was further alleged that the Prime Minister and his accomplices were attempting to kill the appellant with the help of a retired Chief Justice of India and his legal accomplices, and that his complaint regarding his missing daughter was not being converted into an FIR.

The Court found that the appellant had also presented information against Air India Limited under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, before the Competition Commission of India (CCI). On 15-12-2023, the CCI found that no evidence was placed on record by the appellant and concluded that there seemed to be an inter-se dispute between the appellant and Air India Limited relating to his service. Consequently, the CCI declined to entertain the information sought by the appellant. Following this, the appellant filed the writ petition, which was subsequently dismissed by the learned Single Judge, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

The Court noted that the appellant’s allegations against the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and Minister of Communications were entirely baseless and lacked any material evidence. The claims of an attempted anti-national act of terrorism and the destruction of CCTV footage were deemed figments of the appellant’s imagination. The Court observed that the appellant’s allegations were vague, incoherent, and preposterous. The Court considered the possibility that the appellant might be suffering from a delusional disorder or was concocting stories. Despite offering medical help, the appellant insisted that he was well and did not need any medical assistance.

The Court referenced the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly Section 100, which allows for the monitoring of individuals who may require mental health intervention. The Court directed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to keep a watch on the appellant and exercise discretion under the Act if necessary.

The Court dismissed the present appeal, agreeing with the learned Single Judge’s assessment that the petition was filled with unsubstantiated, disjointed, scandalous, incoherent, and preposterous allegations.

[Captain Deepak Kumar v. Election Commission of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4562, decided on 03-07-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

Appellant in person

Ms. Suruchi Suri, Standing Counsel for ECI

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *