Back
Court Slams Door on Rival Party's Bid to Silence EPS's Campaign Fire
In a swift dismissal amid Tamil Nadu's heated election buildup, the rejected a urging the Election Commission to crack down on leader Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) for alleged hate speeches. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, ruled on , that such complaints from third parties lack legal standing.
From Representation to Courtroom: The Spark of Political Friction
Va Pugazhendi, identifying as Chief Secretary of the , fired off a representation to the and Tamil Nadu's Chief Electoral Officer on . He accused EPS of delivering "derogatory and provocative remarks" against political opponents—specifically the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister—during campaign rallies. Pugazhendi claimed these violated , by fomenting enmity between classes of citizens, breaching the Model Code of Conduct, and risking public order and communal harmony.
With no response from the authorities, Pugazhendi escalated to the High Court via WP No. 15449 of 2026, seeking a
to bar EPS from campaigning and even deregister
before the campaign's end. The petition painted a picture of speeches that
"pose a serious threat to public order."
Petitioner's Plea vs. Court's Cool Response
Pugazhendi's camp, represented by , hammered on the urgency: EPS's words allegedly stirred hatred, demanding immediate ECI intervention. Reports noted calls for severe measures like debarring EPS and dissolving 's recognition.
The respondents—ECI, the state Chief Electoral Officer, and EPS (represented indirectly)—faced no formal counter but benefited from the court's threshold scrutiny. The bench, aided by standing counsel for the poll panel, zeroed in on . Why should a rival party's secretary police speeches targeting others?
Echoes of Wisdom Guide the Ruling
The court drew a firm line, invoking the
's 2014 decision in
. There, the Apex Court had rebuffed a PIL over campaign hate speeches, cautioning against
into electoral fray.
"A
pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign... cannot be put on the pedestal of a real
. There are laws to take care of it,"
the SC observed.
Applying this, the Madras HC noted:
"If the third respondent has made hate speeches against specified persons, it is for such persons to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law."
Pugazhendi, as a PADMK functionary, was deemed a meddlesome third party, rendering the writ non-maintainable.
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment distilled sharp insights:
"The speeches of the third respondent during election campaign contain derogatory and provocative remarks against political opponents which are in violation of, as they tend to promote enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens."
"pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign, we are afraid, cannot be put on the pedestal of a real. There are laws to take care of it."( )
"The, at the instance of the petitioner, who claims to be the Chief Secretary of another political party is not maintainable."
No Room for Proxy Battles: Dismissal and Its Ripple Effects
"The
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs,"
declared the bench unequivocally.
This ruling reinforces electoral boundaries: aggrieved individuals, not rivals, must challenge barbs. It shields campaigns from collateral litigation, potentially curbing a flood of third-party complaints. For TN polls, it clears the path for EPS's rallies while signaling poll panels to handle complaints through established channels—lest harmony truly frays.
