Introduction:
In a significant legal development during the Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a plea by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order that restrained the BJP from publishing certain advertisements against the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC). The advertisements in question were alleged to be derogatory and in violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The Supreme Court’s vacation bench, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, upheld the High Court’s interim order, emphasizing the need to avoid further acrimony in the electoral process.
Arguments:
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing the BJP, argued that the advertisements were based on factual information and were part of the party’s legitimate electoral campaign. He contended that the High Court’s ex-parte order, which was to remain effective until June 4, severely curtailed the BJP’s freedom of speech and expression during a crucial phase of the election. Patwalia highlighted the urgency of the matter, noting that the election process would conclude soon, and any delay in adjudication would render the BJP’s efforts futile.
On the other hand, Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Amit Anand Tiwari, representing the TMC, supported the High Court’s decision, asserting that the advertisements were not only derogatory but also intended to mislead voters with unverified allegations and personal attacks against TMC functionaries. They argued that the BJP’s advertisements violated the MCC and the guidelines set by the Press Council of India, thereby justifying the High Court’s restraining order.
Court’s Judgement:
After reviewing the disputed advertisements, the Supreme Court bench concurred with the observations of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Viswanathan remarked that the advertisements were prima facie disparaging and emphasized that electoral campaigns should not degenerate into personal attacks. He advised the BJP to focus on presenting itself as the better alternative rather than disparaging its rivals.
Justice Maheshwari echoed this sentiment, noting that further acrimony would not serve the interests of voters. Consequently, the bench expressed its disinclination to interfere with the High Court’s interim order. Following this, Patwalia chose to withdraw the petition, seeking liberty to file a reply before the single judge bench of the High Court, which had initially passed the restraining order.
The Calcutta High Court, in its interim order, had criticized the Election Commission of India (ECI) for its inaction on the complaints against the BJP’s advertisements. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya noted that the MCC prohibits participants in the electoral process from making unverified allegations or distortions against their opponents. The High Court’s order underscored the derogatory nature of the BJP’s advertisements and their intention to insult rivals.
The division bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya, affirmed the single bench’s decision, expressing concern over the potential impact of such advertisements on the electorate. The bench emphasized that political parties should have internal mechanisms to ensure their propaganda does not cross ethical boundaries, likening the absence of such mechanisms to a lack of a “Lakshman Rekha.”
The division bench highlighted the broader implications of misleading advertisements on the electoral process, noting that such practices ultimately misinform and harm the electorate. They urged political parties to maintain a higher standard of discourse, particularly during elections, to preserve the integrity of the democratic process.