Cart is empty 
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea requesting a six-year ban on Prime Minister Narendra Modi from participating in elections. The plea alleged that Modi violated the Model Code of Conduct by seeking votes on religious grounds for the upcoming Lok Sabha polls. Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the case, explained that the court couldn’t direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) on how to handle such matters.
The petitioner, Advocate Anand S Jondhale, pointed to a speech made by Modi in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, where he allegedly urged voters to support the BJP using religious appeals. Jondhale argued that such statements could incite religious discord, thereby violating the law.
However, the court found the plea flawed, stating that it presumed wrongdoing without adequate evidence. It reiterated that it couldn’t compel the ECI to take specific actions and that the ECI was responsible for independently assessing complaints.
The ECI assured that it would evaluate the petitioner’s representation according to legal procedures. Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the ECI, noted that the commission regularly receives such complaints and handles them as per established protocols.
Jondhale’s petition also contended that Modi’s speech breached the Model Code of Conduct, which prohibits activities that could exacerbate differences or create tension between groups. The code also prohibits the use of religious sites for election campaigning.
Despite Jondhale’s efforts, the ECI had not acted on his complaint, leading him to seek recourse in the court. He asked the court to instruct the ECI to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Modi and disqualify him from contesting elections for six years.
However, the court reiterated its position that it couldn’t instruct the ECI on specific actions, emphasizing the commission’s independence in such matters.
In summary, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea seeking a ban on Modi from contesting elections, citing its lack of merit and its inability to dictate the actions of the Election Commission. The court underscored the importance of evidence and due process in such cases, emphasizing the need for impartiality and independence in electoral matters.