The Supreme Court rejected a PIL seeking action against political parties’ alleged unlawful acts, calling it a “publicity interest litigation” and directing the petitioner to approach the High Court. CJI B R Gavai also warned the counsel over courtroom conduct.
New Delhi: On August 11, the Supreme Court refused to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) that asked for directions to all State Election Commissions (SECs) to take steps to stop alleged illegal activities of political parties which, according to the petitioner, could harm the “sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the country.”
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar heard the matter and made it clear that while genuine public interest cases are welcome, the court will not encourage petitions that are filed for publicity.
The bench observed,
“The public interest litigations are necessary but in the name of PILs, we cannot allow publicity interest litigations.”
The court also disapproved of the practice of filing such petitions directly in the Supreme Court instead of approaching the concerned High Court first. Petitioner Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay had moved the PIL against the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI).
However, the Chief Justice questioned the need to bypass the High Court and approach the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: ‘Extend PoSH to Political Parties’ || PIL Seeks Gender Safety at the Core of Indian Politics
The CJI told the petitioner,
“Can’t this be raised before the Bombay High Court? This is nothing but a publicity interest litigation. Though PILs are necessary to protect citizens’ rights, this petition concerns policy matters of the Union or ECI and does not justify a direct approach to the Supreme Court under Article 32.”
After hearing the observations, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the PIL and explore other legal remedies available, such as moving the High Court.
Towards the end of the hearing, the CJI expressed displeasure at the behaviour of the petitioner’s counsel during the proceedings.
The Chief Justice cautioned him, saying,
“Do not show me these gestures. Don’t make me remind you what happened in the Bombay High Court. I have saved you from contempt before.”
CASE TITLE:
GHANSHYAM DAYALU UPADHYAY vs. UNION OF INDIA
W.P.(Crl.) No. 000304 / 2025
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Political Parties
