Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain BJP Leader's Plea Against Biju Janta Dal For Using Party Symbol In Advertising Welfare Schemes

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea moved by BJP Odisha's General Secretary, Jatin Mohanty, against alleged misuse of public funds by Biju Janta Dal (BJD) while advertising State welfare schemes using its party symbol 'Conch' allotted by the Election Commission of India.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked Mohanty to approach Orissa High Court as everything, including advertising of the schemes, happened there.

As Mohanty's counsel withdrew the petition, the court granted him the liberty to file the writ petition in the court having jurisdiction

“Go there (Orissa High Court). Raise it over there. Everything happened in Orissa. Advertisements were done in Orissa. This court is overburdened. We cannot do it in this manner. Go there. They will decide. Not us,” the court said.

It added: “That is the story in each State. It is not unique to one State. It is happening in every State. They will decide it, go to Orissa High Court. Don't come to Delhi High Court. Forum convenience is Orissa.”

The court disposed of the plea which sought direction on the ECI to take appropriate legal action against BJD, the ruling party in Orissa, for violating the election symbols (reservation and allotment) order, 1968 and model code of conduct.

The plea also sought to restrain the Orissa Government from making any further advertisement of State welfare scheme using the symbol 'Conch'.

The plea claimed that as per the information received by an RTI Activist, BJP has spent a Rs.378 crores in advertisements in the last five years and Rs.378.629 crore on self-propagation.

It was Mohanty's case that he had filed a representation to ECI in November last year for cancellation of reserved symbol of BJD for violating the model code of conduct. However, no order was passed on the representation.

“It is submitted that from the newspaper articles circulating every day, it appears that Respondent No. 2 had other motives for advertising various State Government Welfare Scheme. Similar advertisement has been widely reported in various other platforms like plying buses, social media, hoarding in State Government offices, Hospitals and Cities and Towns. The question then arises is that whether such a consideration can be said to be in public interest?,” the plea stated.

Title: Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49