The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition to restrain AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami from campaigning for the upcoming Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections for allegedly making derogatory comments against political opponents [Va Pugazhendi Vs Chief Election Commissioner].
A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan refused to entertain the petition filed by former AIADMK functionary Va Pugazhendi.
The Court held that such a plea by a third party is not maintainable.
The Court observed that if any individual was aggrieved by the alleged remarks, it was for such person to seek remedies in accordance with law. A third party, even if politically affiliated, could not maintain a writ petition on this issue, it said.
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Election Commission of India (2014), which held that public interest litigation (PIL) petitions concerning speeches made during election campaigns is not maintainable. The top court had cautioned that there are adequate statutory mechanisms to deal with such grievances.
The petitioner, Va Pugazhenghi, had alleged that during election campaigns, Palaniswamy had made hate speeches against incumbent Chief Minister and DMK leader MK Stalin and the Deputy Chief Minister, Udhayanidhi Stalin.
According to his affidavit, Palaniswami, such comments were made at public meetings in Chennai and Cuddalore. One such speech suggested that no major crises had occurred during the DMK regime and went on to imply that Stalin “might have disappeared” or “died” had such events taken place.
The petitioner also cited another speech allegedly directed at Udhayanidhi Stalin, which included remarks described as inflammatory, including references to “Polidol (poisonous medicine).”
Pugazhendi had earlier addressed a representation to the Election Commission of India (ECI), urging it to take action against Palaniswami, including by debarring him from campaigning and deregistering the AIADMK as a recognised political party.
He filed a writ petition before the High Court citing the ECI's failure to respond to this April 10 representation.
The petition alleged that speeches made by Palaniswami during the election campaign contained derogatory and provocative remarks against his political opponents, in violation of Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He argued that such statements promoted enmity between different classes of citizens, breached the Model Code of Conduct, and posed a threat to public order.
The Court, however, has dismissed the plea after observing,
"If the third respondent (Palaniswamy) has made hate speeches against specified persons, it is for such persons to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. The writ petition, at the instance of the petitioner, who claims to the Chief Secretary of another political party is not maintainable."
The petitioner was represented by Advocate R Thirumoorthy
The Election Commission authorities were represented by Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan.
[Read Judgment]