LexJAFAR IMAM NAQVI versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 785 JAFAR IMAM NAQVI V. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (C) No.429 of 2014) MAY 15, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V~ RAMANA, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 - Power under - Exercise of -Election speeches rendered during the election campaign - PIL seeking direction to Election Commission to C take action against all politicians and political parties indulging in making hate speeches during election campaign - Held: It is not appropriate to entertain petition as PIL and give directions - Matter of handling hate speeches could be a matter of adjudication in an appropriate legal forum and D may also have some impact in an election disputes raised under 1951 Act - PIL pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign, cannot be/f)ut on the pedestal of real PIL - There are laws to take care of it-Representation of People Act, 1951. E Public Interest Litigation - Evolution of Discussed. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the Election Commission to take action against all the politicians and political panies indulging F in making hate speeches in election campaign. The question which arose for consideration is whether the Court in exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution should enter into the arena of effect G and impact of election speeches rendered during the election campaign in public interest litigation. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 785- H 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. The matter of handling hate speeches could be a matter of adjudication in an appropriate legal forum and may also have some impact in an election disputes raised under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, to entertain a petition as a public interest B litigation and to give directions would be inappropriate. [Para10] [793-D] Manohar Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another (1996) .1 SCC 1699 and Prof.Ramchandra G.Kapse vs. C Haribansh Ramakbal Singh (1996) 1 SCC 2068 - referred to. 2. A public interest litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign, cannot be put on the pedestal of a real public interest litigation. There are laws D to take care of it. In the name of a constitutional safeguard entering into this kind of arena, would not be within the constitutional parameters. [Para 11] [793-F; 794-A] E Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and others AIR 1993 SC 1960: 1993 (2) SCR 581 - distinguished. State of Bihar vs. Sir Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252: 1952 SCR 1056; Vishaka and others vs. State of F Rajasthan and others AIR 1997 SC 3011: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404; Daryo and others vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 1961 SC 1457: 1962 SCR 574; Union of India and another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. etc. AIR 1989 SC .1933: 1989 (3) SCR 316; Kanusanyal vs. District Magistrate, G Darjeeling and others AIR ~973 SC 2684: 1974 (1) SCR 621; MC.Mehta and another vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1 ~87 SC 1086: 1987 (1) SCR 819; Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India and others (2014) 3 Scale 552 - referred to. H JAFAR IMAM NAQVI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF 787 INDIA Case Law Reference· : A AIR 1952 SC 252 Referred to Para 4 AIR 1993 SC 1960 Distinguished Para 5 AIR 1997 SC 3011 Referred to Para 7 B AIR 1961 SC 1457 Referred to Para 7 AIR 1989 SC 1933 Referred to Para 7 AIR 1973 SC 2684 Referred to Para 7 c AIR 1987 SC 1086 Referred to Para 7 (201'4) 3 Scale 552 Referred to Para 8 (1996) 1 sec 1699 Referred to Para 10 (1996) 1 sec 2068 Referred to Para 10 D CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Pefition (C) No.429 of 2014. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. E Petitioner-In-Person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The petitioner, a practising advocate F 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 interestor any other appropriate writ, order, direction, commanding respondent G 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; H 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.