Madras High Court
P.Dhamayanthi vs The Election Commission Of India on 14 May, 2014
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.05.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.13665 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 P.Dhamayanthi ... Petitioner vs 1.The Election Commission of India rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Asoka Road, New Delhi-110 001. 2.Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001. 3.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 4.Tamil Nadu State Chief Electoral Officer, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai-600 009. 5.All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by General Secretary, 226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. 6.Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by General Secretary, Anna Arivalayam, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. 7.The Publisher, Junior Vikatan, No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents Praryer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration, declaring (i) the Parliamentary Election held on 24.04.2014 for the 39 constituencies of Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional and a re-election may be held after taking necessary preventive measures to curb the payment of money to the voters by the political parties within the stipulated time specified under the law and (ii)directing the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu, respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take all the necessary steps to maintain law and order without giving any element of scope for damaging any public property any attack on people or institution as the present atmosphere is not very conducive. For Petitioner :Mr.P.Rathinam O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This writ petition, designed as a 'Public Interest Litigation', has been filed by one P.Dhamayanthi, a practising Advocate. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare the Parliamentary Election held on 24.04.2014 for the 39 constituencies of Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional and re-election may be held after taking necessary preventive measures to curb the payment of money to the voters by the political parties, within a stipulated time specified under law. The petitioner further seeks for a direction upon the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu, respondents 2 and 3, to take all necessary steps to maintain law and order without giving any element of scope for damaging any public property, any attack on people or institution, as the present atmosphere is not conducive.
2.Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended that there are several press reports, by which, it is clear that the voters were bribed by various political parties and money had flown and in this regard, certain paper cuttings and newspaper reports have been filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers. Referring to the statement said to have been made by the Chief Electoral Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegation that money was paid to the voters is evident and therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has to be granted.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the materials placed on record, it has to be pointed out that at this stage of the matter, writ petition cannot be maintained. The law on this aspect has been well settled as early as in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami -vs- The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and others reported in AIR 1952 SC 64, wherein it has been held that once the electoral process had begun, the writ Court should not interdict the same. In the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 their Lordships considered the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue interim direction after commencement of electoral process. After taking into consideration of the decisions of the Constitution Bench in N.P.Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namkkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 (1) SCC 405, the Supreme Court held as hereunder: -
32.....
(1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.
(2)....
(3)....
(4)....
(5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.
4. Further, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2013, dated 30.04.2013, (A.Anandaraj vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai-9 and three others), and W.A.No.1282 of 2013, dated 17.06.2013, (R.Murali Mohan vs. The Co-operative Election Commissioner, Chennai and 5 others).
5. After referring to the decisions in Manda Jaganath vs. K.S.Rathanam reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 and Ramesh Rout vs. Rabindra Nath Rout reported in (2012) 1 SCC 762, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2013, dated 30.04.2013 and W.A.No.1282 of 2013, dated 17.06.2013, has held that once the election process is commenced, the remedy open to the aggrieved person is only to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned Electoral Tribunal.
6. Furthermore, the petitioner's entire case rests upon certain press reports said to have been published in various newspapers and magazines. This alone cannot be a basis for declaring the election as unconstitutional, which have already been concluded.
7. In such view of the matter, no relief can be granted in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.K.,J.) (T.S.S.,J.) 14.05.2014 Index :Yes/No Website :Yes/No bs/pbn To
1.The Election Commission of India rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Asoka Road, New Delhi-110 001.
2.Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
4.Tamil Nadu State Chief Electoral Officer, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai-600 009.
5.All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by General Secretary, 226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
6.Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by General Secretary, Anna Arivalayam, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.
7.The Publisher, Junior Vikatan, No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
S.MANIKUMAR,J.
and T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
bs/kb/pbn W.P.No.13665 of 2014 Dated: 14.05.2014