The Supreme Court of India, in a recent ruling, declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at disqualifying Prime Minister Narendra Modi from elections for a period of six years. The PIL alleged that PM Modi had engaged in hate speech and invoked religion during his election campaigns.
The bench, comprised of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea after expressing disinterest in entertaining it further. Responding to the petitioner’s counsel, the bench stated, “You must approach authority. If you want to withdraw, we will permit you,” effectively allowing the petitioner, Fatima, to withdraw the petition.
The PIL had sought a directive to restrain the Prime Minister from soliciting votes using religious references. Specifically, it referenced a speech made by PM Modi in Banswara on April 21 during his campaigning, alleging that it incited communal disharmony. The petitioner also cited other instances of similar speeches made by Modi during the campaign period.
In addition to rejecting the PIL against PM Modi, the apex court also dismissed another petition targeting the Election Commission of India (ECI). This petition sought action against both PM Modi and Union Minister Anurag Thakur for alleged hate speeches during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
The petition against the ECI argued that the commission had failed in its duty to ensure free and fair elections, as mandated by the Constitution. It accused the ECI of allowing repeated violations of not only the Model Code of Conduct but also other laws.
The Supreme Court’s decisions come amidst a backdrop of heightened scrutiny of political rhetoric and conduct during election periods, emphasizing the complex intersection of law, politics, and freedom of speech in democratic processes.
