On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting directives for the Union Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file a complaint and take legal action against politicians Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, and Akhilesh Yadav. The PIL alleged that these politicians had made misleading and false statements with the purported intention of tarnishing India's reputation and credibility.

A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has concluded the PIL filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, who asserts himself as a social worker.

He was perturbed by the purportedly false assertions made by the three politicians regarding the alleged waiver of loans by the Central Government amounting to Rs.15 or 16 lakh crores "of few Industrialists." The court noted that the industrialists and individuals who are purported to have been defamed possess the resources to approach the court and initiate suitable legal 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 voters. 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….”

“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. You should we relax the principle of locus standi to entertain the PIL?”

Furthermore, the PIL sought directives concerning political parties such as the Indian National Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, and Samajwadi Party, as well as media outlets News 24, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube, to remove the purportedly false and misleading statements from their respective platforms.

Yadav argued that the statements were disseminated with the intention to sow confusion among readers or viewers, thereby aiming to undermine the image of the Central Government.

The plea asserted that the "deliberate attempt" to portray a negative image of the Central Government has consequently tarnished the nation's reputation itself. It argued that such actions could lead to adverse effects on the country, including potential impacts on foreign investment, disruptions in tourism, and the promotion of unrest within the nation.

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