The court said this while addressing the petitioner's contention that apex court, being the guardian of the constitution, was obligated to issue notice to the Election Commission, call for its response and issue appropriate directions.
Declining to entertain Naqvi's plea, the court said that "the Election Commission might have taken note of it (hate speeches) and initiated certain action."
The seminal question that arises for its consideration is whether in exercise of power under article 32 of the constitution, should it enter into the arena of effect and impact of election speeches rendered during the election campaign in a public interest litigation, the court said.
On Naqvi's submission that since the infancy of the constitution, the apex court has not declined to declare a law wherever it has found that it is unconstitutional, the court said that all its earlier rulings relied upon by him in support of his plea had nothing to do the issue raised by him.
The petitioner had contended that hate speeches during the electioneering were totally unwarranted and could endanger the safety and security of public at large and undermine the structuralism of democratic body polity.
Urging the court's intervention, he had contended that the hate speeches had the potential of disturbing the social equilibrium of the society and creating a crack in the multi-faceted fabric.
