"Misconceived": Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Seeking FIR Against Prime Minister Narendra Modi Over Alleged 'Hate Speeches'

The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a plea seeking immediate action against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other candidates for delivering allegedly “communally divisive speeches” in violation of the Model Code of Conduct amid the Lok Sabha polls.

Justice Sachin Datta rejected the plea observing that the same is wholly misconceived. 

The petition sought a direction on the ECI to take immediate action in accordance with law including filing of FIRs against candidates delivering hate speeches in violation of MCC.

The plea refers to the Prime Minister's speeches delivered in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh last month. It also refers to the tweets made by BJP Chief JP Nadda and a speech delivered by Union Minister Anurag Thakur in Himachal Pradesh on April 27.

Advocate Nizam Pasha appeared for the petitioners and submitted that the ECI cannot have different standards for taking action against different politicians.

He said that while ECI has taken action by barring the Chief of other political parties, no such action was taken by the constitutional body in case of the Prime Minister.

Advocate Suruchi Suri appeared for ECI and referred to an advisory issued to all political parties on March 01 before announcing the elections.

As Pasha said that a representation was made to the ECI by the petitioner on April 24 followed by a reminder on May 03, Suri said that a reply is expected by the political party in question by May 15 pursuant to which action will be taken if required.

“I cannot micromanage the ECI as to how they want to deal with… They have not yet concluded the proceedings. They are in the middle of it. They have made a statement that they are expecting a reply by May 15. Then they say they will take action if required. I'll record that,” Justice Datta told Pasha.

Justice Datta also said that the court cannot go into the issue as the ECI being the constitutional body is looking into the same.

While rejecting the plea, the court said that it has earlier also observed that any presupposition by the petitioner is unjustified.

“As such, at this stage, the present petition is wholly misconceived. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the present petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

The plea submitted that despite a large number of complaints by several citizens, including the petitioner, ECI has failed in taking any effective action.

“This inaction on the part of the Respondent is manifestly arbitrary, malafide, impermissible and constitutes a violation of its constitutional duty. It amounts to rendering the MCC futile, the very purpose of which is to ensure that communal harmony and the spirit of brotherhood is not given a go-by by candidates to secure victory in the elections,” the plea stated.

It added that the “omissions and commissions” by ECI are not only in complete and direct violation of Articles 14, 21 and 324 of the Constitution of India but are also “impeding free, fair and unbiased General Elections.”

“It is submitted that a bare perusal of the aforementioned speeches, that are readily available and are being widely circulated on social media platforms, sufficiently establishes their communally inciteful nature. The Respondent despite being solely responsible for the conduct of free and fair elections has miserably failed in its constitutional duty of preventing hate speeches thereby leaving the sanctity and integrity of the entire election process in a lurch,” the plea stated.

It further submitted that no such action has been taken against Prime Minister Modi and others from the Bhartiya Janata Party for their alleged hate speeches, despite complaints made to ECI.

“The Respondent failure to take expeditious action is violative of the Representation of People Act, 1951, The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as well as the Constitution of India,” the plea states.

Title: Shaheen Abdulla & Ors. v. Election Commission of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 581