SC dismisses Cong MP’s plea against EC’s Clean Chits to Modi

In a huge setback to opposition parties, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissedCongress MP Sushmita Dev’s plea against a series of clean chits given to PM Narendra Modi for alleged violations of the Election Model Code of Conduct.


 

Dev had initially alleged that the EC was moving slowly in investigating allegations against Modi and BJP president Amit Shah. Following this the SC directed the EC to examine all cases before May 6. Subsequently the EC went on to give four successive clean chits to Modi in cases involving speeches in Latur, Wardha, Barmer and even one where he reportedly used Wing Commander Abhimanyu’s name during campaigning.

Dev’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi then claimed that in five of the six cases where the EC went easy on Modi, the decision was not unanimous and that one person had dissented in five of the cases. The SC then demanded that the EC furnish details of the decisions in each case.

But on Wednesday, the SC dismissed Dev’s petition as infructuous. This is basically a technicality because the initial application did not actually challenge the orders, just claimed they were taking too long. After the EC cleared 11 such cases of alleged violation of the EMCC, that aspect of the application was resolved.

The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner also did not actually challenge the orders, instead just said that reasons for giving clean chits were not provided, suggesting discrimination and arbitrariness by the EC. Dev’s affidavit alleged that the EC had passed orders in a “cryptic manner without mentioning any reason whatsoever, in stark violation of the law laid down by this court.” This however does not actually challenge any of the orders. Thus, no further action could be taken in the matter legally.

The court reportedly told Dev, “Rightly or wrongly, decision has been made. Challenge it in court,” the bench told Dev while disposing of her plea.” This leaves the door open for the orders to be formally challenged in court. The court observed that with respect to the present petition, the court could not “go into the merits of the orders in this petition”.

Trending

IN FOCUS

Related Articles

ALL STORIES

ALL STORIES