Godge had questioned Congress President Sonia Gandhi's right to contest the election from the Bellary parliamentary constituency on the ground that had ``dual citizenship''. Loke had sought the cancellation of the B Com degree of Pankaj Bhujbal, the son of Nationalist Congress Party leader Chhagan Bhujbal.

While dismissing both petitions, the division bench of Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice S H Kapadia said Godge had used the forum to get ``undue publicity in the media'', whereas Loke used the court to settle political scores with Bhujbal. The bench also said such petitions amount to sheer waste of time without furtherance of any public interest.

The chiefjustice was particularly caustic on Godge who, as a ``member of the legal fraternity, should have refrained from such motivated litigation.'' Being a lawyer, he should have known the legal provisions which allow/debar a person from contesting elections.

According to Godge's petition, Sonia's Gandhi's candidature from Bellary has misled the general public. The election officer in Bellary has not inquired into the aspect of her dual citizenship before scrutinising the forms, he maintained. Quoting reports from the media, Godge said the public is puzzled as neither the returning officer, nor the central government and rival political parties have taken up the issue. He said a detailed inquiry into her citizenship record is needed, especially a reference needed to be made to the Indian embassy in Italy with regard to her Italian citizenship.

To this, the chief justice told Godge to ``leave the matter to the voters and the government'' and observed: ``The Representation of People's Act does not have anyprovision which prohibits a candidate with dual citizenship from contesting polls, neither does the Indian Citizenship Act necessitate Sonia Gandhi to produce a citizenship certificate before contesting from Bellary. Therefore, what is the reason for you to file this petition? And if you do object to her candidature, you can later file an election petition challenging her victory on the ground of ineligibility? Why come to this court when the election process is in full swing?''

The judges told the petitioner that objections to her candidature could have been raised during the scrutiny. But such objections have not been filed, not even by political rivals of the candidate.

The judges accepted the argument of Additional Solicitor General Dhananjay Chandrachud, who pointed out that even before the petition was heard in court, reports had appeared in the media about such a PIL being filed. ``While the media was within its right to report on such matters, the petitioner should have refrained from approachingthe newspapers,'' Chandrachud told the court.

Earlier in the morning, the chief justice came down heavily on Loke, who was ``settling political rivalry'' in the garb of a public interest petition. ``We have been, time and again, observing that political rivalry should be settled in political forums and this court should not be misused for settling such scores,'' the bench stated.

Loke had contended that Pankaj Bhujbal was admitted to third year B Com through the University' of Mumbai's Directorate of Distance Education on the basis of false and bogus documents. Therefore, his degree was fraudulent and should be cancelled. He further alleged that Pankaj's father, Chhagan Bhujbal, was using his political clout to regularise the degree conferred by the university. However, the university's affidavit claimed that Pankaj was neither given any admisssion, nor given any degree from the Directorate of Distance Education.