On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to engage with a petition from the BJP, which sought to challenge a Calcutta High Court division bench ruling. This ruling had previously decided against interfering with a single-judge verdict that barred the party from releasing any advertisements that breached the Model Code of Conduct during the Lok Sabha elections.
Concluding the proceedings, the apex court advised BJP’s counsel that “a rival is not an adversary” and emphasized the necessity to “avoid inciting hostility.”
The bench, consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, informed senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, representing the BJP, of their reluctance to overturn the high court’s order. Justice Viswanathan added that such intervention would not benefit the electorate.
Patwalia contended that there were allegations of corruption against the government. The bench noted that, at first glance, the advertisement seemed derogatory. Patwalia insisted that his client had not been given a hearing and asserted that the advertisements were factual. However, the bench remained unconvinced and questioned the necessity of intervening during the elections.
Realizing the court’s disposition, Patwalia requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn, allowing the BJP to respond to the single bench’s notices in accordance with legal procedures.
Earlier, the division bench of the High Court had upheld the single judge’s May 20 order, suggesting the BJP seek a review of the decision. The high court underscored the importance of adhering to a “Laxman Rekha” and avoiding personal attacks by political entities.
The BJP contested the single-judge’s decision before the division bench, arguing that it was made without a hearing. On May 20, the high court had issued an injunction preventing the BJP from publishing advertisements that violated the Model Code of Conduct until the conclusion of the Lok Sabha elections on June 4.
The BJP’s petition claimed that the single judge had erred by imposing an interim injunction based on an alleged MCC violation without considering that the matter was pending before the Election Commission of India (ECI). Under Article 324 and Article 329 of the Indian Constitution, the ECI has the authority to act against parties violating the MCC.
The BJP argued that the high court should have recognized the May 20 order as flawed due to the absence of an opportunity for the party to present its case. The petition emphasized that the petitioner was denied a hearing and the chance to refute the facts, rendering the impugned order legally untenable.
