The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL seeking direction to the Election Commission to take action against all politicians and political parties indulging in hate campaign during electioneering, including making hate speeches.

Dismissing the PIL, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice N.V. Ramana in their judgment said: "We are not persuaded, despite the adroit labour and vehement arguments by the petitioner-in-person to issue notice (to the Election Commission) and accordingly, the writ petition, stands dismissed in limine."

Tracing the evolution of the PIL, the court said: "A public interest litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign, we are afraid, cannot be put on the pedestal of a real public interest litigation."

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Misra said: "There are laws to take care of it. In the name of a constitutional safeguard entering into this kind of arena, in our convinced opinion, would not be within the constitutional parameters."

The petitioner, advocate Jafar Imam Naqvi who practises in the apex court, had sought direction to the Election Commission to take action against leaders and parties engaged in hate campaigns, including delivering hate speeches.

The petitioner had sought the derecognition of the parties whose leaders invoked hatred against other communities in their speeches.

Saying it would be inappropriate to entertain the PIL and give directions, the court in its order said: "The matter of handling hate speeches could be a matter of adjudication in an appropriate legal forum and may also have some impact in election disputes raised under the Representation of People Act, 1951."

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.