Ads of Wrath

BJP’s false-claim advertisements against the Trinamool Congress was thrown away by the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court. TMC is your rival, not enemy, the judge told the BJP’s counsel

By Sujit Bhar

It is public knowledge today that political discourse has descended to a gutter level. Not an eyebrow is raised when leaders belch out hate and even obscenities from public platforms in election campaigns. There was a time when the Election Commission of India (ECI) had a spine and would interfere to castigate and punish candidates. Today, despite extensive social media coverage—in the absence of a biased and incompetent mainline media—bringing the ugly truths to the forefront, the ECI finds no reason to interfere.

One glaring lack of the ECI’s involvement had come with a number of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) advertisements in the West Bengal media, which had termed the Trinamool Congress (TMC) “Sanatan virodhi” or against Sanatan Dharma. In major advertisements, the BJP had termed the dispensation governing West Bengal, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, as one against Hindus, against Lord Shri Ram, or even aligned with Pakistan. The advertisements had simply levelled mindless allegations, without presenting even a shred of evidence.

The TMC had made several submissions before the ECI, but when the Commission remained unmoved, not willing to reign in such blatant anti-social advertisements and the party generating it, the TMC moved the Calcutta High Court.

Restraining Order

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court acted promptly and with authority to restrain the BJP from publishing such advertisements. The judge also pulled up the ECI for “grossly failing” to address the complaints filed by the TMC against the BJP ads that targeted the ruling party in West Bengal.

“The ECI has grossly failed to address the complaints of the TMC in due time. This Court is surprised that resolution of the complaints after the conclusion of elections is nothing to the Court and as such in due failure on part of the ECI in due time this Court is constrained to pass an injunction order,” Justice Bhattacharya said in his order.

The Court also accepted that the advertisements were “derogatory” and “slanderous” in nature. These went completely against the Model Code of Conduct imposed by the ECI.

False Bravado

Not happy with the verdict of Justice Bhattacharyya, the BJP approached the division bench of the Court against the judge’s order. The division bench declined to interfere with the single-judge’s interim order and emphasised that it was imperative that all political parties follow healthy electoral practices, as the ultimate victim of misleading electoral campaigns was the voter.

The BJP was not to be tamed. It still believed that there was nothing wrong with the advertisements and had the temerity to approach the Supreme Court against the order of the Calcutta High Court judge.

If the BJP had expected a reprieve from the top court of the country, it was in for a shock. The Supreme Court flatly refused to entertain BJP’s petition against the Calcutta High Court order restraining it from publishing “derogatory” or “slanderous” advertisements targeting the TMC during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

The case was presented before the vacation bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan. The bench confirmed that the advertisements published by BJP were prima facie disparaging.

Said the Court in its order: “Prima facie the advertisements are disparaging. We cannot promote further acrimony; of course you can promote yourself.” The Court went further to add that such advertisements will not help the voter. “(It will) Only (help) you,” Justice Viswanathan remarked.

Base on Facts, Claims Counsel

During the hearing before the vacation bench of the top court, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, the BJP counsel, tried to argue that the advertisements were based on facts and that the party was not heard by the single-judge (at the Calcutta High Court).

That this claim by the BJP counsel was more akin to kite flying was soon evident, when the Court looked carefully at the advertisements in question. Having studied the advertisements, the bench said it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court order. “Please see pages so and so. You are magnifying the issue here. We are not inclined to interfere,” the Court said.

The Court was not convinced with Patwalia’s arguments. It made clear its intention to dismiss the plea. As a face-saver, the senior counsel sought to withdraw the case.

The top court, however, said that the BJP can contest the case before the single-judge bench of the High Court. “Petitioner is given liberty to contest the notices issued against them through counter affidavits which shall be considered in accordance with law,” the bench ordered.

Before rising, the bench made an interesting and educative comment. Said Justice Viswanathan to the BJP counsel: “Your rival is not an enemy.” This refers to a clear indication that this was a civilised society and legal fights should be fought by the rules of society.

Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the TMC.

Leave a Reply