The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a PIL for directions to state election commissions (SEC) to take steps to curb alleged illegal activities of political parties that could undermine "sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the country".
"The public interest litigations are necessary but in the name of PILs, we cannot allow publicity interest litigations," a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar said.
The bench further frowned upon the practice of approaching the Supreme Court directly.
One Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay moved against the Centre and the Election Commission but was cautioned by the CJI who asked "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."
The bench then allowed him to withdraw the PIL and pursue alternative remedies.
Towards the end of the hearing, the CJI was miffed by the petitioner's counsel and said, "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."
The plea sought directions to all SECs to devise a joint scheme to monitor and prevent unlawful activities by political parties across the country.
"The public interest litigations are necessary but in the name of PILs, we cannot allow publicity interest litigations," a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar said.
The bench further frowned upon the practice of approaching the Supreme Court directly.
One Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay moved against the Centre and the Election Commission but was cautioned by the CJI who asked "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."
The bench then allowed him to withdraw the PIL and pursue alternative remedies.
Towards the end of the hearing, the CJI was miffed by the petitioner's counsel and said, "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."
The plea sought directions to all SECs to devise a joint scheme to monitor and prevent unlawful activities by political parties across the country.
