New Delhi: The BJP on Friday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court order interfering in a single-judge order restraining the party from releasing advertisements that "violate" the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Has refused to do. Lok Sabha Elections.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a vacation bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal. The bench listed it for hearing on March 27.
On May 22, a division bench of the high court said it was not inclined to entertain an appeal against the interim order passed by a single-judge bench.
A single-judge bench on May 20 restrained the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from publishing advertisements violating the model code of conduct till June 4, the day the Lok Sabha election results are scheduled to be declared.The court also restrained the saffron party from publishing the advertisement cited by the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, which claimed unverified allegations against it and its workers.
BJP's plea against the high court order was mentioned before the apex court.
"Why don't you move to the next recess bench?" The bench asked the lawyer why this matter was mentioned.
The lawyer, who told the bench that the High Court has restrained the BJP from releasing advertisements during the Lok Sabha elections till June 4, urged that the matter be listed on May 27.
“List before the vacation bench on May 27,” the bench said.,
The division bench of the high court had said that the BJP can approach the single judge for review or modification or withdrawal of the order.
The ruling party at the Center had filed an intra-court appeal before the division bench, claiming that the single-judge bench had passed the order without holding any hearing.
In its petition filed in the top court, the BJP has said that the division bench of the high court should have considered that the party was not heard and granted an ex-parte mandatory injunction at the interim stage by the single judge.
"It is pertinent to highlight that such interim relief granted by the High Court was beyond the prayer sought by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC/Respondent No. 1) which was only till the passing of an interim order directing the ECI (Election Commission) Limited to take action as per the law of India,” it said.The petition claims that the single judge "erred in granting interim injunction" on the basis of alleged violation of the MCC, without considering that the issue is pending before the Election Commission under Article 324 read with Article 329. goes. The Constitution has the right to take appropriate action against any political party that violates the MCC.
It said the TMC had approached the Election Commission, reportedly aggrieved by the publication of some advertisements against the spirit of the MCC.
It said that based on TMC's complaint, the Election Commission issued a show cause notice on May 18, directing the BJP to file its reply by May 21.
"On May 20, 2024, the writ petition was listed before the High Court.The Single Judge, despite observing that the ECI has understood the issue and a show cause notice has been issued, proceeded to pass a comprehensive interim order, which, whether it is in the nature of a final order, thereby making the petitioner (BJP) be restrained from continuing publishing the allegedly defamatory advertisements till June 4, 2024 or until further orders,” the plea said.
It said the division bench should have considered that the case was heard and the single judge passed the order in the BJP's absence, which had a "significant impact on its ability to campaign during the elections".
"The present petitioner (BJP) was neither given an opportunity of being heard nor given an opportunity to rebut the facts giving rise to the instant dispute and for this reason alone, the impugned order cannot be quashed as being bad in law. Is." Claimed.
It said, “The impugned order has been passed affecting the constitutional guarantee provided to the present petitioner.,
As interim relief, the petition seeks an ex-parte stay on the operation of the interim order of May 20 as well as the order of May 22 passed by the High Court.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a vacation bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal. The bench listed it for hearing on March 27.
On May 22, a division bench of the high court said it was not inclined to entertain an appeal against the interim order passed by a single-judge bench.
A single-judge bench on May 20 restrained the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from publishing advertisements violating the model code of conduct till June 4, the day the Lok Sabha election results are scheduled to be declared.The court also restrained the saffron party from publishing the advertisement cited by the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, which claimed unverified allegations against it and its workers.
BJP's plea against the high court order was mentioned before the apex court.
"Why don't you move to the next recess bench?" The bench asked the lawyer why this matter was mentioned.
The lawyer, who told the bench that the High Court has restrained the BJP from releasing advertisements during the Lok Sabha elections till June 4, urged that the matter be listed on May 27.
“List before the vacation bench on May 27,” the bench said.,
The division bench of the high court had said that the BJP can approach the single judge for review or modification or withdrawal of the order.
The ruling party at the Center had filed an intra-court appeal before the division bench, claiming that the single-judge bench had passed the order without holding any hearing.
In its petition filed in the top court, the BJP has said that the division bench of the high court should have considered that the party was not heard and granted an ex-parte mandatory injunction at the interim stage by the single judge.
"It is pertinent to highlight that such interim relief granted by the High Court was beyond the prayer sought by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC/Respondent No. 1) which was only till the passing of an interim order directing the ECI (Election Commission) Limited to take action as per the law of India,” it said.The petition claims that the single judge "erred in granting interim injunction" on the basis of alleged violation of the MCC, without considering that the issue is pending before the Election Commission under Article 324 read with Article 329. goes. The Constitution has the right to take appropriate action against any political party that violates the MCC.
It said the TMC had approached the Election Commission, reportedly aggrieved by the publication of some advertisements against the spirit of the MCC.
It said that based on TMC's complaint, the Election Commission issued a show cause notice on May 18, directing the BJP to file its reply by May 21.
"On May 20, 2024, the writ petition was listed before the High Court.The Single Judge, despite observing that the ECI has understood the issue and a show cause notice has been issued, proceeded to pass a comprehensive interim order, which, whether it is in the nature of a final order, thereby making the petitioner (BJP) be restrained from continuing publishing the allegedly defamatory advertisements till June 4, 2024 or until further orders,” the plea said.
It said the division bench should have considered that the case was heard and the single judge passed the order in the BJP's absence, which had a "significant impact on its ability to campaign during the elections".
"The present petitioner (BJP) was neither given an opportunity of being heard nor given an opportunity to rebut the facts giving rise to the instant dispute and for this reason alone, the impugned order cannot be quashed as being bad in law. Is." Claimed.
It said, “The impugned order has been passed affecting the constitutional guarantee provided to the present petitioner.,
As interim relief, the petition seeks an ex-parte stay on the operation of the interim order of May 20 as well as the order of May 22 passed by the High Court.
