The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to state election commissions to curb alleged unlawful activities of political parties, terming it a “publicity interest litigation”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that while genuine PILs serve an important role in protecting citizens’ rights, the court would not permit petitions aimed at personal publicity.
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, had approached the apex court under Article 32, naming the Centre and the Election Commission as respondents. The plea urged all state election commissions to devise a joint mechanism to monitor and prevent illegal activities by political parties that could threaten the “sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the country.”
However, the bench questioned the need to approach the Supreme Court directly. “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,” CJI Gavai remarked.
The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the PIL with liberty to pursue alternative remedies before an appropriate forum.
Towards the end of the proceedings, the CJI expressed displeasure over the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel, cautioning, “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.”
