Court leaves exit poll issue hanging

The court did not answer the query of the counsel for the petitioners Anil Diwan on the implication of the adjournment and on whether it meant that the media would risk prosecution if it went ahead with the surveys.

The Commission has prohibited the publication or telecast of the surveys from 5 pm on February 14 to 5.30 pm on February 28. While the petitioners had argued that the EC cannot invoke Article 324 to curtail fundamental rights, the Commission’s case was that it could do so under Section 126 (amended) of the RPA.

The Court saidin case it decided to dismiss the petition today nothing will come in the way of the petitioners raising the issue in another petition for a future election.

"If we do not grant interim stay as prayed for by the petitioners today, it would virtually mean a dismissal of the petition. On the other hand if we grant stay, the Court will in effect be admitting the petition without hearing the arguments on admissibility as the ban comes into effect tomorrow," the judges observed.

In the circumstances, the judges said, it would be better if the issue was tested by the court at a later stage and hence the matter was being adjourned till the elections are over.

Reacting to the ruling, the EC claimed it was a vindication of its position. "The Supreme Court has not given us any negative direction," Chief Election Commissioner M S Gill said, adding that the ban on the polls would continue to be in effect.

However, despite persistent questioning by journalists to resolve the ambiguous situation that has arisen,Gill refused to be drawn into giving any further clarification.

"The Supreme Court has spoken. We are not in a superior position to speak after the Apex Court has given its word."

But putting a spin on the Court’s decision not to pass any direction on a petition challenging the EC’s ban order, Gill said any violation of the ban order would invite punishment under Article 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

He refused to answer repeated queries whether the EC would initiate legal proceedings against newspapers or audio-visual media for any violation of the order.

Commission’s counsel Lalit Bhasin said the core issue to be decided was whether the directives and guidelines amounted to a violation of Article 19 (1) of freedom of speech and expression.

Earlier, explaining the reasons for declining to pass any order, the judges said since the issue involved was related to Article 19(1)(a) upholding the freedom of speech and expression, the court could not examine the matter before thecoming Lok Sabha elections.

The only way out was to settle the matter for a future election and "hopefully the nation may not have another election for five years," the judges observed.