Today, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition aiming to disqualify Prime Minister Narendra Modi from elections. The petition alleged that Modi had made hate speeches and used religious rhetoric during campaigns.

Following the bench's reluctance to entertain the matter, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, the petitioner decided to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed upon withdrawal.

When the matter was taken, the petitioner's counsel said, "I have annexed the speeches made by respondent No.2 (PM Modi), where he has clearly sought votes in the name of God."

Justice Nath highlighted that the petitioner had bypassed the appropriate route by directly approaching the Court without first seeking recourse from the Election Commission of India (ECI). "Don't invoke Article 32/226 in this manner. You should first approach the relevant authority. If you wish to withdraw, we will grant permission," the judge remarked.

The petitioner subsequently agreed to withdraw the petition but requested the freedom to approach the ECI. However, Justice Nath responded, "Why should we grant you that liberty? That's your responsibility, your concern." Additionally, the Court dismissed another petition that sought directives for the ECI to take action against PM Modi and Union Minister Anurag Thakur for purported hate speeches.

The current petition was filed by Fatima against both the Election Commission of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Fatima alleged that during a public rally in Banswara, Rajasthan, on April 21, 2024, the Prime Minister made remarks intended to sow discord among different groups. The petitioner argued that such statements constituted a grave violation of the Model Code of Conduct, the Representation of the People Act, and the Indian Penal Code.

Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that Prime Minister Modi delivered a similar speech in Uttar Pradesh, which allegedly amounted to an offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that such actions warranted disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.