SC refuses to entertain BJP plea challenging HC order

Kolkata: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the Calcutta High Court’s interim order restraining it from publishing advertisements which were allegedly violating Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

The Vacation Bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice K V Viswanathan refused to interfere with the order. According to a news agency, the Bench observed that advertisements were prima facie “disparaging.” The senior advocate representing BJP asserted that the advertisements were based on facts but the Bench refused to entertain the plea stating that they don’t want to promote further “acrimony.”

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal, the petition was withdrawn seeking liberty to file a reply before the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court which passed the interim order. The BJP had made the intra court appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Bench. The advocate representing BJP contended that they were “not served, not heard and in their absence an order was passed”.

The advocate representing BJP argued that in absence of such procedure, the order is liable to be set aside. It was further contended the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) was not maintainable since they had already submitted representation to ECI, who had showcased BJP. Hence, according to the advocate’s submissions, TMC ought not to have approached the Court. In case the submissions of BJP were not heard, the Division Bench of Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya stated that they can approach the single bench for review of the order or for modification or recalling the observations. “Therefore at this juncture we are not inclined to entertain this appeal,” Division Bench stated.

The Single Bench had further slammed ECI for “grossly failing” to address the complaints raised by TMC against the alleged slanderous advertisements in due time. Counsel for the ECI stated that the only remedy available to the petitioners was in the form of election petition and that such prayers in injunction could not be entertained at this stage.

However, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that the challenge hits at the rights of the petitioner and its functionaries under Article 21 (No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty) and Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) of the Constitution of India, in order to practice, profess and propagate their political philosophy as well as to have a right to a free and fair electoral process.