The Supreme Court has observed a video posted by a member of the NCP Ajit Pawar faction featuring Sharad Pawar. It has requested that a circular be sent to members advising them to avoid such actions.
The Supreme Court today instructed the Ajit Pawar group of the Nationalist Congress Party to collect information about a video shared by a current Legislative Council member that features a speech by Sharad Pawar. They also directed the group to send a notice to its members, advising them not to include Sharad Pawar in any campaign materials. On November 12, Amol Ramkrushna Mitkari, a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Council, shared a brief video on his official X account, which includes part of Sharad Pawar’s speech. The final frame of the video shows the ‘clock’ symbol, which is currently under legal review but belongs to the Ajit Pawar group, and the text reads ‘Rashtravadi Congress Party’ in Hindi without mentioning the specific faction or the required court disclaimer.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Sharad Pawar group, questioned, “Why do Ajit Pawar and this MLC need to use my photo?” This prompted Justice Surya Kant to ask if rural voters care about social media posts. Dr. Singhvi responded, “Today, India is different. Much of what we see in Delhi is also viewed by people in rural areas.” A two-Judge Bench, consisting of Justice Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, requested the senior counsel for the Ajit Pawar group to identify Amol Mitkari, who is posting videos of Sharad Pawar. They also instructed the group to circulate a notice to candidates and officials, urging them not to use Sharad Pawar’s image or video in their campaign materials.
All candidates, supporters, and office holders must ensure that no old or new images or videos of Mister Sharad Pawar, with whom you now have differing views and are opposing, are used. You should aim to be self-reliant based on whatever support you have, Justice Kant stated regarding the Ajit Pawar faction. The Ajit Pawar and Sharad Pawar factions are competing directly for 36 Legislative Assembly seats, with elections starting on November 20. In response, Dr. Singhvi mentioned, “For these 36 seats, the goal is to demonstrate ‘Look, you can assist us too, we are close to (Sharad) Pawar’.” The Ajit Pawar faction submitted a compliance affidavit following the Court’s November 6 Order to publish an “exclusive disclaimer” about the ‘clock’ symbol prominently in newspapers, especially in Marathi. Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, representing the Ajit Pawar faction, presented the Bench with images of new advertisements in 11 newspapers, including Loksatta, The Indian Express, Dainik Bhaskar, and The Times of India.
Balbir Singh noted that all campaign materials were reviewed and approved by the relevant Returning Officer. He accused the opposing side of presenting “doctored documents” and photos, claiming that Sharad Pawar’s true aim is to “obtain a statement from the Court to sway voters against the Ajit Pawar faction.” In response, Justice Kant remarked, “We do not think too highly of ourselves that we will sway the voters.” Dr. Singhvi questioned whether the Ajit Pawar faction believes it is not the Court’s “higher duty as a Constitutional Court” to ensure fairness. “Why? Because if my lords act on a Constitutional duty, the voters will become confused?”
The Sharad Pawar group stated that the Ajit Pawar group only followed the rules in some areas of Maharashtra, while in other places, they continued to break the rules. Dr. Singhvi responded to the claim about the Returning Officer approving the campaign by saying, “The Returning Officer does not verify if the disclaimer is present. He is not a police officer enforcing the Court’s Orders.”
Dr. Singhvi pointed out that the purpose of the Court’s Orders was being undermined, suggesting that either “the ‘clock’ should be stopped and he can receive anything he wants, or the Court should take strict action” for not following the disclaimer rules. The Bench did not address this issue. Justice Kant remarked, “The people of this country are very smart and wise. They know where to cast their votes. We trust their ability to distinguish between Ajit Pawar and Sharad Pawar. However, video clips might or might not sway voters. We cannot be certain. But if there is a Court Order, it must be respected and followed closely.”
Cause Title: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar And Anr. [SLP(C) 4248/2024]
