The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain two PILs which sought a six-year ban on Prime Minister Narendra Modi from contesting elections on the ground that he had invoked religion and delivered hate speeches during the ongoing election campaign.

While one PIL was filed by a woman named Fatima, another was filed by former bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice S.C. Sharma asked senior counsel Santosh Hegde, appearing for Sarma, and the advocate appearing for petitioner Fatima why they did not approach the Election Commission (EC) with the grievances instead of directly approaching the apex court.

The bench did not agree with Hegde's plea that the petitioner was forced to approach the court as the EC was not doing its job.

"We are not inclined to interfere. We cannot issue such directions under Article 32 (for enforcement of fundamental rights)," said Justice Vikram Nath, who was heading the bench. No person can directly approach the apex court or high courts under Article 226 seeking such a relief, he added.

“Have you approached the authorities? For a writ of mandamus by the court, you must approach the authorities,” the bench remarked.

Fatima had complained that Modi had in a speech delivered on April 21 in Banswara, Rajasthan, told the people that if the Congress and the Opposition were voted to power, they would take away the mangalsutra of women.

The petitioner also referred to another speech of the Prime Minister in Uttar Pradesh wherein he had allegedly sought votes based on religion and had also accused the Opposition of favouring a particular community.

According to the petitioner, the Prime Minister had violated the Model Code of Conduct by making such speeches, which could lead to disqualification under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.