Madras High Court
T. Ayyappan vs The Election Commission Of India on 20 February, 2006
Author: A. Kulasekaran
Bench: A. Kulasekaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20/02/2006
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
Writ Petition No. 1631 of 2006
T. Ayyappan
President of Nanjil Peoples Welfare
Association
'Dwaraka Kamala Nagar'
Puthugramam
Ramapuram Post
Kanyakumari District - 629 303 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Election Commission of India
rep. by the Chief Election
Commissioner
Niruvachan Sadan
Ashoka Road
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Chief Election Commissioner
Office of Election Commission
Chennai ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for
a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.
!For Petitioner ... Mr. D. Rajagopal
^
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by A. KULASEKARAN, J) This writ petition is listed today for admission and we heard the counsel for the petitioenr.
2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.03.2001, 25.02.2004, 18.05.2004, 16.01.2006 in accordance with law and take appropriate action.
3. The petitioner herein has said to have submitted a representation to the first respondent herein dated 25.02.2004 praying thus:-
"Hence, we humbly submit this petition before you to pass necessary orders with immediate effect to the political parties not to have any pre-poll alliance in the coming general elections. We have already sent a telegram to you in this regard on 24.02.2004. If it is not and heard to, a great injustice will be done to the people of India by denying their effective voting power and at the same time more and more unethical parties by religion, caste, creed and objective less, will come in and ruin the Democratic system in our Country and the Election Commission alone will be responsible for the same."
4. The crux of the case of the petitioner is seeking to issue of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents to restrain the political parties not to have any pre-poll alliance in the forthcoming General Elections, for which, it sent representations to the respondents, but the respondents have not taken any tangible action.
5. The petitioner has stated that "in general voters vote for a party or an alliance of parties under good faith and belief and on their assurances. However after the elections are over the parties which had pre poll alliance on some difference of opinion break their alliance and such parties after break join hands with parties whose basic objectives and policies are entirely different. Similarly a party which was formed out of another party, due to difference of opinion for various reasons enters with an alliance with the same party from which it was departed. People who cast their valuable vote for a particular political party which in an alliance with another political party believing that their votes may not be wasted. But on the contrary, due to the break in the alliance, parties get away from the pre poll alliance and thereby defeating the very object of the election. Such things will not only amount to cheating the voters, but also cheating the very constituency. To avoid all these things, there may be some direction by the respondents to totally abolish the system of pre poll alliance among the political parties."
6. Article 324 of the Constitution of India speaks about superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in the election commission. This Article is a plenary provision vesting the powers with the election commission for conduct of National and State election including the election to the office of the President and Vice President. Article 324 has to be read in the light of the Constitutional scheme and the Representation of People Act, 1950 as well as Representation of People Act, 1951. Article 324 operates in an area left unoccupied by the legislation and the words superintendence, direction, control and conduct of elections are set out in the broad terms.
7. Election commission discharges public function which are administrative as well as quasi judicial as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in T.N. Seshan vs. Union of India - 1995 (4) SCC 611.
8. Election Commission has the power to issue direction in general or in particular with respect to symbols and this will include determination of claims of recognised political parties in the State. The Commission can also decide matters with regard to de-recognition of a political party vis-a-vis the choice of reservation of symbol in connection with the election, though election may takes place in future.
9 The election symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 provides for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at election in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, for recognition of a political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. Apart from the powers conferred by the Representation of People Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Election Commission has ample powers under Article 324 of the Constitution itself, as mentioend above, to make appropriate order as to the conduct of election cancellation of poll or ordering of re-poll according to the exigency in a particular area. Introduction of electronic machines for recording votes, postponing the elections having regard to the disturbed conditions in a State or part thereof. The functionaries in any manner concerned with the directing the conduct, supervision and control of free, fair and peaceful election, need to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach to ensure that the Country shall be governed in its true secular, socialistic and democratic perspective as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhim Singh vs. Election Commission of India - 1996 (4) SCC 188.
10. But in exercising such powers, the commission cannot interfere with the powers vested with some other authority. Example, the power of President to make the notification under Section 14 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Election Commission has powers to issue directions in the process of conduct of election to the effect that the political parties shall submit to the commission for its scrutiny the details of the expenditure incurred or authorised by the political parties in connection with the election of the respective candidate.
11. In this case, the request of the petitioner before the respondent/Commission is to pass appropriate orders restraining the political parties from having any pre poll alliance for which the election commission is not vested with the power. When political parties chosen to forge an alliance prior to the poll and after election they change their mind to have alliance with some other party, in such event, the election Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Rameshwar Prasad and others vs. Union of India and another) JT 2006 (1) SC 457 wherein it was held that even when majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical means, no interference is permissible and such interference would be against the democratic principles of majority rule. Hence, submitting a representation to the respondents seeking to restrain the political parties from having any pre poll alliance cannot be considered by the election commission since there is no statutory imposed upon them.
12. It is seen from the records that on receipt of one of the representations from the petitioner, the first respondent has sent a reply dated 15.04.2004 wherein it was stated thus:-
"I am directed to refer to your letter dated 25.02.2004 on the subject cited and to say that the provisions dealing with recognition of political parties are contained in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, which is available for purchase in the sale counter of the Commission on payment of requisite charges."
In our considered opinion, the first respondent could have avoided sending such reply.
13. No rigid rule of locus standi can be applied to a public interest litigation. Any person acting bonafide, having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in action. The public interest litigation is not an advisory litigation to hold the State or its office or authority responsible for reparation. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is not based on any fundamental right, hence, the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
rsh To
1. The Election Commission of India rep. by the Chief Election Commissioner Niruvachan Sadan Ashoka Road New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Chief Election Commissioner Office of Election Commission Chennai