Supreme Court Refused To Exclude Prime Minister Modi From Elections And To Take Action Against  Hate Speech

GG News Bureau 

New Delhi, 14th May. Tuesday saw the Supreme Court turn down a PIL that sought to bar Prime Minister Narendra Modi from running in the elections on the grounds that he had made hate speech while campaigning.

According to the Bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the court was not inclined to give the ECI any instructions in this regard. The suit was filed in opposition to posts published on the BJP’s social media account and speeches given by Union Minister Anurag Singh Thakur and Prime Minister Modi.

The highest court was considering a request made by Fatima, via Attorney Anand S. Jondhale, asking the EC to order PM Modi’s six-year election disqualification under the Representation of People Act.

“We have no desire to get involved. Such instructions are not permissible under article 32. Judge Nath was reported by Bar and Bench as saying, “Dismissed.”

In the meantime, the plea claimed that despite a flagrant violation of the Model Code of Conduct, the ECI had done nothing.

“Despite constituting a serious breach of the Model Code of Conduct, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Representation of People Act, 1951, and significantly contributing to the deterioration of communal harmony within the nation, the Election Commission of India has failed to undertake decisive action, notwithstanding repeated efforts to notify and prompt the statutory body of its obligatory responsibilities,” said the plea.

SC rejects plea seeking six-year ban on PM voting

On Tuesday, petitioner Fatima filed a second plea, requesting that PM Modi be held accountable for allegedly breaking the model code of conduct (MCC) by soliciting votes in the name of religion. However, the Supreme Court declined to consider this plea as well.

Have you contacted the police? The Court declared, “You must first approach the authorities for a writ of mandamus.” rejected as having withdrew. The court declared, “We will not grant any liberty to approach, etc.; that is your job.”