Former MP HC Judge Rohit Arya Joins BJP, Known for Denying Bail to Munawar Faruqui

Bhopal: Former Madhya Pradesh High Court judge, Justice Rohit Arya, has officially joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), stating that his views align closely with the party’s philosophy. Justice Arya made this announcement on Sunday, explaining that he was invited to a seminar by the BJP in Madhya Pradesh, where party members encouraged him to join them.

“I was overwhelmed, and I didn’t say no,” Arya shared in an interview with Live Law. However, he emphasized that he has no intentions of entering electoral politics. “Politics is not my cup of tea. I have no interest in electoral politics and don’t intend to fight elections. I want to be in public life. The BJP, as a party, will help me convert my ideas for the people into reality. I will give them many suggestions,” he said.

Justice Rohit Arya’s tenure as a judge began on September 12, 2013, when he was appointed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He became a permanent judge on March 26, 2015. During his time on the bench, Arya presided over several high-profile cases. One notable case was in 2021 when he denied bail to comedians Munawar Faruqui and Nalin Yadav, who were accused of hurting religious sentiments during a New Year event in Indore. The Supreme Court later granted bail to Faruqui, overturning Arya’s decision. Reflecting on this case, Arya stated, “I believe that if you hurt sentiments, you should be taught a lesson. I don’t want to comment on what happened in the Supreme Court.”

In 2020, Justice Arya made headlines with a controversial bail order. He granted bail to an accused in a molestation case on the condition that he present himself to the complainant on Raksha Bandhan for her to tie a “rakhi” on his wrist, symbolizing a brother-sister relationship. This decision faced substantial criticism and was later overturned by the Supreme Court, which issued guidelines for handling such bail petitions. Commenting on the order, Arya said, “It was a case under Section 354 of the IPC. Although the accused only held the victim’s hand, there was no doubt that it shouldn’t have happened. However, both were from the same village, so I thought it would be better to resolve the matter amicably. I wanted a patch-up between the victim and the accused.”