AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court is likely to give its verdict on November 5 on the petition filed against Prime Minister Narendra Modi alleging that he had violated the model code of conduct for elections by clicking a selfie with his party's symbol and holding a press conference on voting day during General Elections in 2014.

Justice J B Pardiwala concluded hearing on the petition on Tuesday. He heard the case after another judge in the Gujarat high court, Justice G R Udhwani, recused himself from the case. Last month, Justice Udhwani had decided to admit the petition but later withdrew the decision on a request made by the state government and decided to give a fresh hearing to the government.

The issue reached the high court after a lower court rejected complainant Nishant Varma's request to add more char ges against Modi who was then Gujarat chief minister.

On April 30, 2014, on Modi's taking a selfie and addressing a press conference, Varma had complained about the breach of poll code before the Election Commission (EC) of India. The EC asked the Gujarat government to book Modi and responsible journalists under Section 126 of the Representation of People Act. Varma, however, felt that the charges were not enough and had moved a magisterial court in Mirzapur rural court campus to add more charges in the FIR.

Meanwhile, the city crime branch investigated the case and gave a clean chit to Modi, which was upheld by a metropo litan court. On the other hand, the magisterial court at Mirzapur turned down Varma's demand to add charges in the FIR against Modi.

After the lower court rejected Varma's demand, his counsel KR Koshti argued that the magistrate had passed the order on the basis of inadequate details. He even blamed the complainant, a PI with the crime branch, for falsely agreeing to the clean chit given by the same agency.

Justice Pardiwala questioned why Varma chose to approach a different court when the investigation was underway by the crime branch.

In defence of lower court's decision, the state government submitted that the complainant had remained silent while the probe was going on. There were eight adjournments in court proceedings before the closure report was accepted, but Varma did not bother to raise the issue in proper court.The magisterial court that rejected Varma's plaint was well within its power in doing so.