During the hearing, Justice J.K. A bench headed by Maheshwari remarked that the advertisements were prima facie "derogatory" and the apex court could not extend its hand to further acrimony.
Senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the BJP, argued that the advertisements were based on facts and the High Court could not have passed such an ex-parte injunction order. However, sensing the apex court's willingness to consider the petition, Patwalia sought permission to withdraw the petition.
Justice K.V. in the bench. Also included. Vishwanathan dismissed the petition while withdrawing it and clarified that it would be open for the appellant to contest the proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court.In an order passed last week, the Calcutta High Court passed a partial injunction barring the publication of advertisements that directly violate the political rights of Trinamool and its office-bearers.
A bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya of the High Court said that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) prohibits all participants in the election process from criticizing other parties or their workers on the basis of unverified allegations or distortions.
It said the Election Commission of India had "completely failed" to address the complaints raised by the ruling Trinamool Congress in a timely manner.
“Accordingly, respondent no. 2 (BJP) is restrained from continuing the publication of objectionable advertisements till June 4, 2024, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Defendant no. 2. I also prohibit publishing such advertisements in any form of media which are in violation of the MCC issued by the ECI during the above mentioned period,'' the order said.In its special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court, the BJP argued that the High Court "erred" in granting an interim injunction on the basis of alleged violation of the MCC, without considering that the case was pending before the ECI, which has Have the right. Taking appropriate action against any political party.
Senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the BJP, argued that the advertisements were based on facts and the High Court could not have passed such an ex-parte injunction order. However, sensing the apex court's willingness to consider the petition, Patwalia sought permission to withdraw the petition.
Justice K.V. in the bench. Also included. Vishwanathan dismissed the petition while withdrawing it and clarified that it would be open for the appellant to contest the proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court.In an order passed last week, the Calcutta High Court passed a partial injunction barring the publication of advertisements that directly violate the political rights of Trinamool and its office-bearers.
A bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya of the High Court said that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) prohibits all participants in the election process from criticizing other parties or their workers on the basis of unverified allegations or distortions.
It said the Election Commission of India had "completely failed" to address the complaints raised by the ruling Trinamool Congress in a timely manner.
“Accordingly, respondent no. 2 (BJP) is restrained from continuing the publication of objectionable advertisements till June 4, 2024, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Defendant no. 2. I also prohibit publishing such advertisements in any form of media which are in violation of the MCC issued by the ECI during the above mentioned period,'' the order said.In its special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court, the BJP argued that the High Court "erred" in granting an interim injunction on the basis of alleged violation of the MCC, without considering that the case was pending before the ECI, which has Have the right. Taking appropriate action against any political party.
