Jahanvi Agarwal
On August 11, 2023, the Supreme Court declined a PIL that sought to restrain 26 opposition parties from using the acronym “Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance” (I.N.D.I.A.), observing that the plea had simply been brought for the sake of publicity.
Before the bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, the lawyer representing the petitioner claimed that there was a race underway in the country to prove nationalist credentials. In light of this, the Court questioned the lawyer on how the legal system might stop the stated race from occurring.
The Court advised the petitioner to approach the Election Commission of India (ECI) if any election rules were being broken. The bench also argued that the petition had been brought only for publicity.
The counsel contended that it was immoral and against norms to refer to the opposition bloc as “I.N.D.I.A.” The bench said that it was not going to determine morality in politics.
A similar petition had already been filed before the Delhi High Court, and the top court was notified that notice had been given in this respect. Following a brief hearing, the case was voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner’s lawyer, Advocate Rohit Kheriwal.
The opposition parties, led by the Congress, had already declared their intention to band together and run against the BJP in the Lok Sabha elections under the I.N.D.I.A. banner.
In response to a similar PIL filed by Girish Bharadwaj, the Delhi High Court served notice to the 26 opposition political parties and the ECI earlier this month.
Case Name: Rohit Kheriwal v. Election Commission of India and Ors
Diary Number: 000780/2023
Bench: Justice S. K. Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia