Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking to direct the Respondent-Election Commission to take immediate action by filing First Information Reports (FIRs) to protect communal harmony and peace, against candidates who delivered hate speeches in violation of the Model Code of Conduct (‘MCC’). Sachin Datta, J. dismissed the petition while stating that the pre-suppositions made by the petitioners were wholly misconceived.


In the present matter, the petitioners leveled the accusations mentioned above against the respondent, and sought directions for taking immediate action against the candidates responsible for such speeches in accordance with the law and to file FIRs on this basis.

The speech referred to in this case was one delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh on 09-04-2024 wherein an appeal was made to the voters to vote for his party “in the name of Hindu deities and Hindu place of worship as well as Sikh deities and Sikh places of worship”. A petition, Anand S Jondhale v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) 5916 of 2024 was filed against this speech seeking directions to disqualify the Prime Minister from elections for six years as per the Representation of PeopleAct, 1951.

Subsequently, the Court vide order dated 29-04-2024 stated that the petition was misconceived because the petitioner should not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court when a complaint had already been submitted to the Election Commission. The Court also stated that the petitioner pre-supposed that there had been a violation of MCC which is completely unjustified. Further, while dismissing the petition, the Court said that the Election Commission was obliged to take an independent view of the petitioner’s complaint.

Analysis and Decision:

The Court noted that similar to the previous case, in this petition also, the petitioner pre-supposed that there had been a violation of the MCC and sought registration of FIRs on that basis.

Further, the Court noted that the present petition had been filed even though it had been disclosed in the petition that a representation had already been made to the Election Commission which was under consideration.

The Court held that the petition was wholly misconceived and since no merit was found, the petition was dismissed.

[Shaheen Abdulla v. Election Commission of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3458, Order dated 13-05-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioners — Advocate Nizam Pasha, Advocate Rashmi Singh

For Respondent — SC Suruchi Suri

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.