Supreme Court of India moved by T. N. Prathapan alleging Election Commission of India inaction over MCC violation. Plea targets broadcast of Narendra Modi speech during election period.
Former Congress MP from Thrissur, Kerala, T. N. Prathapan has approached the Supreme Court of India alleging inaction on the part of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in relation to an alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The plea arises in the context of the election period in Kerala, during which the MCC was in force to ensure a level playing field among political parties and prevent misuse of official machinery.
The controversy centres around a televised address delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 18, which was broadcast on state-funded channels such as Doordarshan and Sansad TV. According to the petitioner, the broadcast took place during an active election cycle and allegedly contained content of a political and partisan nature.
Prathapan contends that the use of government-controlled media platforms for airing such a speech during the MCC period amounted to a misuse of state resources and conferred an undue electoral advantage.
In his petition, Prathapan has sought directions to the ECI to issue a show-cause notice to the Prime Minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), asking why action should not be taken for the alleged violations. He has also requested that an inquiry be initiated against the media platforms involved and that the broadcast be removed from all official and government-controlled digital and media platforms. Additionally, the plea seeks a direction for the ECI to complete its inquiry within a time frame fixed by the Court and to place its findings on record.
A central argument in the plea is that the ECI failed to discharge its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests it with the authority to supervise and ensure free and fair elections. The petition asserts that the Commission’s inaction in the face of a documented violation undermines its constitutional responsibility.
It states,
“This duty is not discretionary. Where a party in power misuses state infrastructure and official media during an active election to gain an electoral advantage, a fact documented through official PIB press releases, the ECI is constitutionally obligated to take cognisance and act. Inaction is not a permissible constitutional option,”.
The petitioner has further argued that the broadcast constitutes a “corrupt practice” under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and violates the principles of the rule of law, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is alleged that the Prime Minister’s address, aired through public-funded channels, went beyond informational content and amounted to an election appeal, targeting specific opposition parties and urging voters to “punish them” for their conduct.
The plea also relies on provisions of the MCC, particularly Section VII(4), which prohibits the use of official mass media for partisan purposes during elections.
Emphasising this point, the petition states:
“The broadcast on Doordarshan and Sansad TV was made: (i) during an active election cycle when the MCC was in force; (ii) through official state-funded media; (iii) for the express partisan purpose of attacking named opposition parties and exhorting voters to punish them. This is a precise and unambiguous violation of Section VII (4) of the MCC”.
Further, the petitioner contends that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and that the alleged conduct has violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a). According to the plea, permitting such broadcasts during the election period creates an uneven electoral field and results in a structural distortion that cannot be remedied after the fact. It also argues that the MCC applies uniformly to all political actors, including the Prime Minister, and that any failure to enforce it equally amounts to selective application of the law.
Filed through Advocate Suvidutt M.S., the petition ultimately calls for judicial intervention to ensure accountability and adherence to electoral norms. The case raises significant questions about the use of state resources during elections, the scope of the ECI’s powers, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.