'Don't Underestimate Wisdom Of Voters': Delhi HC Rejects PIL To Prosecute Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, Akhilesh Yadav For 'Misleading Statements'

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected a PIL seeking direction on the Union Government and Election Commission of India (ECI) to register a complaint and prosecute politicians Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Akhilesh Yadav for making allegedly misleading and false statements with an intent to damage India's image and credibility.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora closed the PIL moved by Surjit Singh Yadav, who claims to be a social worker. 

He was aggrieved by the allegedly false statements made by the three politicians regarding alleged waving of loan by the Central Government of Rs.15 or 16 lakh crores “of few Industrialists.”

The court observed that the industrialists and individuals who are alleged to have been defamed have the means to approach the court and file appropriate proceedings.

“Further the court is of the view that the principle of relaxation of locus standi is not called for in the present petition. This court is also of the view that the petitioner underestimates the wisdom of Indian voter. Accordingly, no orders are called for in the petition. Accordingly, the same is closed,” the bench said.

During the hearing, Acting Chief Justice Manmohan told Yadav's counsel: “ If people or industrialists are aggrieved, they will take action. How can we interfere in this? Don't underestimate the wisdom of voters. Don't speak their mind please. Don't involve us in this….”

The court further remarked: “Someone misleads, someone leads. Let the people take the call. Don't get us involved in this. If people are aggrieved, they will take action. why should we relax the principle of locus standi to entertain the PIL?”

The PIL further sought a direction on political parties Indian National Congress, Aam Aadmi Party and Samajwadi Party, as well as News 24, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube to remove the allegedly false and misleading statements from their respective platforms.

It was Yadav's case that the statements have been published to create confusion in the minds of readers or viewers so that the image of the Central Government could be downgraded.

“Therefore, it is quite clear that there is a distinct difference between loan Waive off and loan Write off but the misleading statements made by politicians and false news published by media outlets had deliberately created a major confusion in the minds of readers / viewers including in the mind of the Petitioner with respect to the sincerity and honesty of the Central Government in handling fiscal matters and this confusion further, negatively impacted the image of the Central Government in the eyes of general public including in the eyes of the Petitioner,” the plea stated.

It added that the “deliberate attempt” to create a negative image of the Central Government has resulted in creating a negative image of the nation itself.

The plea contended that this can have negative repercussions for the nation like foreign investment getting affected, tourism getting hampered and promotion of anarchy in the nation.

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329