Thursday, June 20, 2024

Crime-Justice

SC to hear on Monday BJP's plea against Calcutta HC order restraining publications of ads against TMC

IANS | May 26, 2024 11:18 AM

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Monday the plea filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against a Calcutta High Court order restraining the saffron party from publication of “derogatory” and “offending” advertisements against the Trinamool Congress (TMC).

 As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a vacation bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Vishwanathan will take up the matter for hearing on May 27.

Earlier on Friday, the special leave petition was mentioned before a vacation bench presided over by Justice Bela M Trivedi for directions seeking urgent listing.

After much persuasion, Justice Trivedi-led Bench said that it would consider listing the matter.

In an order passed this week, Calcutta High passed an ex-parte injunction prohibiting the publication of advertisements which squarely violate the political rights of Trinamool and its functionaries.

A bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the high court said that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) prohibits all participants in the election process from criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion.

It said that the Election Commission of India “grossly failed” to address, in due time, the complaints raised by the ruling Trinamool Congress.

“Accordingly, respondent no. 2 (BJP) is hereby restrained from further continuing with the publication of the offending advertisements… till June 04, 2024, or until further order, whichever is earlier. The respondent no. 2 is further restrained from publishing advertisements in any form of media which is violative of the MCC issued by the ECI during the aforesaid period, ” the HC order said.

The special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court stated that the high court “erred” by granting an interim injunction based on the purported violation of MCC without taking into consideration that the issue was pending before the ECI, which has the authority to take appropriate action against any political party.

Have something to say? Post your comment