The Delhi High Court Today dismissed a petition urging the ECI and the Ministry of Home Affairs to take action against Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, and Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly making “misleading and false statements” against the government, thereby undermining India’s credibility.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, Today (March 20th), dismissed a plea that sought directives to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to address alleged “misleading and false statements” made by Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, and Arvind Kejriwal, which purportedly harmed the “credibility of India.”
The statements in question revolved around claims made by Gandhi, Yadav, and Kejriwal regarding the Central government’s purported waiver of loans to industrialists amounting to approximately Rs 16 lakh crores.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the petition, highlighting the significance of the Indian electorate’s discernment. The court emphasized that voters possess the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood and are aware of who is genuinely leading and who is misleading.
The court remarked,
“Someone will mislead, someone will lead. People will take a call. Don’t underestimate the Indian voters.”
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan further underscored that if any industrialist or individual felt aggrieved by the opposition leaders’ statements, they had the means to approach the court for appropriate action, rendering a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) unnecessary.
“If the industrialists are aggrieved or the politicians are aggrieved, they will take action… Don’t underestimate the mind of the voter. They are very very smart. They know who is speaking the truth and who is not. Don’t involve us in this. They are political figures,”
-the Court stated emphatically.
This decision reflects the court’s faith in the discernment of the electorate and underscores the importance of individual accountability in addressing grievances arising from political discourse.
The bench further stated that no orders were necessary in the matter, asserting that the principle of locus standi cannot be relaxed in favor of the petitioner.
“This court is of the view that the industrialists and individuals who are alleged to have been defamed have the means and wherewithal to approach the court and file appropriate proceedings… This Court is also of the view that the principle of relaxation of locus standi is not called for in the present situation. This court is also of the view that the petitioner underestimates the wisdom of the Indian voter. Accordingly, this court is of the view that no orders are called for in the present petition and the same is closed,”
-the Bench recorded in its order.
The petition, filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, claimed to represent the voices of farmers and social activists. It alleged that statements made by opposition politicians had tarnished India’s image and undermined the credibility of both the country and the central government.
Yadav contended that such statements could potentially harm foreign investment and tourism while fostering an environment of disorder.
“The deliberate misinterpretation of ‘write-off’ as ‘waive-off’ by respondents 3 to 5 (Gandhi, Yadav, Kejriwal, and certain media outlets) has led to confusion among readers and viewers, including myself, resulting in a downgrade of the central government’s image,”
-the plea asserted, referring to statements made by opposition figures.
Yadav argued that he previously held a “high regard” for the Central Government due to its developmental initiatives and governance but was swayed by the allegations made by opposition leaders.
“After hearing and reading these news items, the respect I held for the Central Government was shattered, and my perception of the government was not only diluted but degraded as well. As a citizen, voter, and taxpayer, I began to lose trust in the Central Government,”
-Yadav expressed.
He emphasized that the dissemination of factually incorrect statements by political figures had left an enduring negative impact on the public’s perception nationwide, including his own.
Yadav also urged for the removal of these statements from social media platforms, news outlets, and political party social media handles, seeking to rectify the perceived damage caused by the misinformation.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Political Parties
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
