 "SC dismisses PIL seeking action against leaders for hate speech")
The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking direction to the Election Commission to take action against political leaders for allegedly making hate speeches during the 2014 Lok Sabha poll campaign.
"We are not persuaded despite the lengthy and ambitious arguments advanced by the petitioner to issue notice and directive (to the poll panel)," a bench of justices Dipak Misra and N V Ramana said.
The bench said that there are other laws, including the Representation of Peoples Act, for taking action against the violators.
The plea has also sought de-recognition of parties whose leaders made such speeches.
Dismissing the plea, the court said, "A PIL pertaining to the speeches delivered during election campaign, we are afraid, can't be put on a pedestal of a real PIL."
"In the name of a constitutional safeguard, entering into this kind of arena, in our convinced opinion, would not be within the constitutional parameters," it said and discussed the scope and history behind the advent of public interest litigation.
"Earlier the PIL was introduced as a tool by this court to take care of certain situations which relate to the poor and underprivileged and who did not have the access to the court," it said.
"We are not persuaded despite the lengthy and ambitious arguments advanced by the petitioner to issue notice and directive (to the poll panel)," a bench of justices Dipak Misra and N V Ramana said.
The bench said that there are other laws, including the Representation of Peoples Act, for taking action against the violators.
Also Read
It was hearing a PIL filed by Allahabad-based lawyer Jafar Imam Naqvi, seeking a direction to act against leaders who have made hate speeches during their campaign and hence "endangered" the safety and security of common people.
The plea has also sought de-recognition of parties whose leaders made such speeches.
Dismissing the plea, the court said, "A PIL pertaining to the speeches delivered during election campaign, we are afraid, can't be put on a pedestal of a real PIL."
"In the name of a constitutional safeguard, entering into this kind of arena, in our convinced opinion, would not be within the constitutional parameters," it said and discussed the scope and history behind the advent of public interest litigation.
"Earlier the PIL was introduced as a tool by this court to take care of certain situations which relate to the poor and underprivileged and who did not have the access to the court," it said.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
SAVE 25%
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Subscribe
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors
Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share
Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor
Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements
Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
SAVE 25%