Writ Petition (C) No. 429 of 2014. Case: Jafar Imam Naqvi Vs Election Commission of India. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Writ Petition (C) No. 429 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Jafar Imam Naqvi Vs Election Commission of India|
|Judges:||Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana, JJ.|
|Issue:||Representation of People Act, 1951; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1980; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 505(1), 505(2); Constitution of India - Articles 21, 32, 141, 142; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),...|
|Judgement Date:||May 15, 2014|
Dipak Misra, J.
1. 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...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL