Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sushmita Dev vs Election Commission Of India on 8 May, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Deepak Gupta
1
ITEM NO.61 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).579/2019
SUSHMITA DEV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
Date : 08-05-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan,Adv. Mr. Varun Chopra,Adv.
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi,Adv. Ms. Namrah Nasir,Adv.
Mr. Omar Hooda,Adv.
Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Neelesh Singh Rao,Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi,Adv.
Intervenor Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Anjul Dwivedi,Adv.
Intervenor Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Piyush Beriwal,Adv. Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji,Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh,Adv.
Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan,Adv.Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2019.05.09 10:15:21 IST Reason: O R D E R
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following 2 prayers:
"a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, or any other similar writ, order or direction to the Respondent-Election Commission of India to expeditiously decide, without any delay or demur, and in any case not later than 24 hours from the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the multiple complaints (marked and annexed as Annexure P-4, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-13, P-17 and P-
18) filed and pending before it, against the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP President Mr. Shah.
b) Pass such order and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner placing on record the orders passed by the Election Commission, dismissing the representations. It is contended that the orders are non-speaking orders and therefore not tenable.
3. We do not see how we can go into the merits of the orders passed by the Election Commission without a specific challenge to the said orders and on the basis of the averments made in the additional affidavit. The relief sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the orders passed by the Election Commission.
4. We do not entertain this writ petition any further, the same is accordingly dismissed, along with all pending applications.
5. The petitioner would be at liberty to have recourse to the remedy, as may be open to her in accordance with law, as against the orders passed by the Election Commission.
(Anand Prakash) (Sarita Purohit)
Branch Officer AR-cum-PS