SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 429

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
JAFAR IMAM NAQVI – PETITIONER
VERSUS
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA – RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION (C)No.429 OF 2014
Decided On : 15-05-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Matter of hate speeches during election campaign cannot be raised under PIL.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – Hate speeches in election campaign – Election Commission might have taken note of and initiated certain action – It could be a matter of adjudication in an appropriate legal forum – It may also have some impact in an election disputes raised under the Representation of People Act, 1951 – Therefore, entertaining PIL in the matter and giving directions would be inappropriate. (Para 10)

       (1996) 1 SCC 169; (1996) 1 SCC 206 – Relied upon

       AIR 1952 SC 252 – Referred

       AIR 1993 SC 1960; AIR 1997 SC 3011; AIR 1961 SC 1457; AIR 1989 SC 1933; AIR 1973 SC 2684; AIR 1987 SC 1086; (2014) 3 Scale 552 – Distinguished

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – Originally used as a tool to take care of certain situations which related to the poor and under-privileged not in a position to have access to the Court – Scope expanded over the years – But still, matter pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign cannot be taken up in PIL – More so when there are laws to take care of it. (Para 11)

       Facts of the case:

       This case is against the hate-speeches delivered by politicians during campaigning in the recently concluded general election.

       Petitioner has prayed for restraining / taking action against such politicians.

       The seminal question that emanates for consideration is whether the Court in exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution should enter into the arena of effect and impact of election speeches rendered during the election campaign in a public interest litigation.

       Finding of the Court:

       Provision of PIL is not meant for such matters.

       Result: Writ petition dismissed in limine.

       

JUDGMENT

DIPAK MISRA, J.

The petitioner, a practising advocate of this Court, as pro bone publico has preferred this writ petition with Article 32 of the Constitution with the following prayers:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus in public interest or any other appropriate writ, order, direction, commanding respondent to take stern action against everyone and anyone found guilty as per law in view of the ongoing activities of the accused politicians and political parties and to ensure protection of the security of Election Staff posted at Varanasi and of public at large of the entire country;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus in public interest or any other appropriate writ, order, direction commanding Respondent to withdraw the recognition given to such political parties resorting to illegal activities and to cancel the candidature of politicians found guilty before declaration the Election Results.

c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The basic assertions in the petition relate to speeches which have been delivered during the recently finished election campaign by various leaders of certain political parties and how they have the effect potentiality to affect the social harmony. It is urged in the petition that these kind of hate speeches are totally unwarranted and can endanger the safety and security of public at large and undermine the structuralism of democratic body polity. Various examples have been given and certain newspaper clippings have been annexed. In view of what we are going to finally say, we are not inclined to advert to the same.

3. The petitioner appearing in person has submitted that in view of such hate speeches by political leaders when the equilibrium of the society is disturbed and there is a possibility of creating a crack in the multi-faceted fabric of the society, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to issue a writ or mandamus to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps. That apart, the petitioner-in-person has also made submissions for issue of a mandamus to cancel the recognition of such political parties and also to protect the liberty and safety of the citizens.

4. The seminal question that emanates for consideration is whether the Court in exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution should enter into the arena of effect and impact of election speeches rendered during the election campaign in a public interest litigation. The petitioner commenced his arguments by stating that since the infancy of the Constitution, this Court has not declined to declare a law wherever it has found that it is unconstitutional. In that regard, he has commended us to the decision in The State of Bihar vs. Sir Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252]. On a careful reading of the said decision, we find that the issue decided therein has nothing to do with the case of the present nature.

5. Learned counsel has ambitiously submitted relying on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and others [AIR 1993 SC 1960] wherein the Court expanded the concept of public remedy where there had been violation of fundamental rights and further opined that the concept of sovereign immunity would be not applicable. He has drawn our attention to paragraph 19 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"We respectfully concur with the view that the court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by Article 32, which itself is a fundamental right, imposes a constitutional obligation on this Court to forge such new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, which enable the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available. The power available to this Court under Article 142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf The contrary view would














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top