On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to State Election Commissions (SECs) to formulate measures to curb alleged unlawful activities of political parties, holding that the matter did not warrant direct intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that while genuine public interest litigations serve an important role, the Court could not permit proceedings motivated by publicity. “The public interest litigations are necessary but in the name of PILs, we cannot allow publicity interest litigations,” the Bench stated.
The petition, moved by Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, sought the creation of a nationwide monitoring mechanism to be jointly devised by all State Election Commissions for detecting and preventing unlawful activities of political parties that could impact the sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the country. The Bench, however, questioned the decision to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction directly, observing, “Can’t this be raised before the Bombay High Court? This is nothing but a publicity interest litigation. Though PILs are necessary to protect citizens’ rights, this petition concerns policy matters of the Union or ECI and does not justify a direct approach to the Supreme Court under Article 32.”
The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the PIL with liberty to seek relief before the appropriate forum. Before concluding, the CJI cautioned the petitioner’s counsel against improper courtroom conduct, observing, “Do not show me these gestures. Don’t make me remind you what happened in the Bombay High Court. I have saved you from contempt before.” With the withdrawal, the proceedings came to an end, leaving the petitioner free to approach the jurisdictional High Court or any other competent authority to pursue the issues raised.
Picture Source :
