Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (August 11) refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to all State Election Commissions to formulate a scheme to watch and curb illegal activities of political parties.

The Court refused to interfere as the petitioner directly approached the Apex Court without exhausting his remedies before the High Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandukar was hearing the plea.

The CJI at the outset inquired why the petitioner had not approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 and come directly under Article 32.

The petitioner's counsel stressed that the prayer he is seeking cannot be granted by the High Court. He reasoned that since the prayer is wider, one High Court cannot issue directions to other State Election Commissions.

The prayer referred to seek directions to all the State Election Commissions " to formulate a scheme in coordination with each other to have a watch and curb on illegal activities of political parties in the country which attempt to endanger sovereignty, integrity and unity of India."

The CJI clarified that the High Court would still have jurisdiction 'wherever a part of the cause of action arises in that Court"

Initially, the CJI proceeded to dismiss the PIL, with the following observations :

"The present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation, though we have time and again said that, for protecting the rights of the citizens, the PIL is necessary. At the same time, we have frowned upon judicial adventurism. This present petition, apart from concerning the policy of the Union or ECI, also does not show why the petitioner has directly approached the SC under Article 32 without availing the alternative efficacious remedy.

We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition"

When the counsel insisted on arguing the matter, the CJI cautioned him, saying, " We have already saved you once from contempt, you want us to again issue one notice?"

The bench subsequently, at the request of the counsel, permitted him to withdraw the petition with liberty to take appropriate remedies as permissible in law.

When the counsel protested, the CJI warned him of his conduct and reminded him that in the past, too, before the Bombay High Court, he had been spared from facing contempt proceedings.

"Don't show these gestures! Don't show faces to us; otherwise, I am the last person to send anybody under contempt. Don't remind me of Bombay days. You have a retrospective and think about what saved you and that time. Don't make me remind you of everything that happened there, and don't make me say those things in the open court."

Case Details : GHANSHYAM DAYALU UPADHYAY vs. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000304 / 2025