Madras High Court
Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 11 April, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 MADRAS 138, (2014) 3 MAD LJ 828
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, M.M. Sundresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11..04..2014 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr. Justice M.M. SUNDRESH Writ Petition No.10369 of 2014 Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam, Rep. By its Organizing Secretary T.K.S. Elangovan, No.369, Anna Arivayalam, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. .. Petitioner versus 1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadhan, New Delhi. 2. The State Chief Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents - - - - - Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus for the relief as stated within. - - - - - For Petitioner :: Mr. R. Shanmughasundaram, Senior Counsel with Mr. A. Saravanan, Advocate For Respondents-1 & 2 :: Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s. G.R. Associates For Respondent-3 :: Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Advocate General assisted by Mr. I.S. Inbadurai, Spl. Govt. Pleader - - - - - O R D E R
With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner, a political party, has preferred this petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein not to permit Thiru. K. Ramanujam, I.P.S. to hold the post of Director General of Police as Administrative Head from the State of Tamil Nadu when Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal has been appointed as the Director General of Police till the conclusion of the Election process, pursuant to the representations dated 2.2.2014 and 22.3.2014.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the appointment of Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal as Director General of Police (Elections) in addition to the present incumbent Thiru. K. Ramanujam as Director General of Police has created an anomalous situation which may hamper fair, smooth and independent conduct of elections in the State by the first and second respondents herein. It is stated that the present incumbent Thiru. K. Ramanujam is a favourite of the present Chief Minister, since when he was promoted and posted as Additional General of Police (Intelligence) on 19.5.2011, he was given full additional charge of the post of Director General of Police with effect from 20.5.2011, ignoring other senior officers. He was due to retire on 30.11.2012. However, just a few days before his superannuation, he was appointed as Director General of Police and by G.O. dated 12.11.2012, was granted a tenure of two years on the post of Director General of Police. Further, it is contrary to the Guidelines dated 9.1.2014 of the Election Commission of India addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and to the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and Union Territories. It is pointed out that there is a clear stipulation that no officer connected with elections, directly or indirectly, should be allowed to continue in the present district of posting (a) if she/he is posted in her/his home district; (b) if she/he has completed three years in that district during the last four years or would be completing three years on or before 31.5.2014. It was further stipulated that any officer who is due to retire within coming six months shall not be engaged in performing election duties during the election. The present Director General of Police, Thiru. K. Ramanujam has already attained the age of superannuation, but is continuing on the post of Director General of Police on account of the Circular dated 20.12.2012, which is contrary to the guidelines (supra).
4. Mr. R. Shanmughasundaram, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.Saravanan, learned counsel submits that there cannot be two Director Generals of Police (Law & Order), and the newly appointed Director General of Police (Elections) may not have full control over all the police personnel who are engaged in the election duty. According to the learned senior counsel, the incumbent Director General of Police (Elections) has to take permission or sanction in each and every matter in relation to election work from the Director General of Police (Law & Order). Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the respondents must be directed to divest Thiru. K. Ramanujam from the post of Director General of Police (Administrative Head) and Thiru. Anoop Jaiswail be given the full charge as the Administrative Head, pursuant to the petitioners representations dated 2.2.2014 and 22.3.2014.
5. On the other hand, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. I.S. Inbadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent-State submits that the appointment of Thiru. K. Ramanujam on the post of Director General of Police was the subject matter of another Writ Petition No.31793 of 2012, wherein a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.12.2012 had dismissed that writ petition which sought for a writ of Quo Warranto against Thiru. K.Ramanujam on his appointment as the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the present Director General of Police (Elections) Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal will have full control over all the police personnel throughout the State of Tamil Nadu during the period of election. He further submitted that the order dated 5.4.2014, whereunder Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal was appointed as the Director General of Police (Elections), makes it clear that all Field Police Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu handling any election related arrangements/works shall report only to Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal, Director General of Police in charge of Elections till the completion of the election process in the State. Learned Advocate General contended that all other allegations levelled by the writ petitioner are vague and baseless.
6. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Election Commission is satisfied with the arrangements made by the State Government by appointing a new Director General of Police (Elections) for the purpose of conduct of smooth and fair elections in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the learned senior counsel, the Home Department, by a Government Order dated 28.3.2014, has already issued a Notification published in the Government Gazette that ...the Director General of Police, Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), all Additional Director Generals of Police, all Inspector Generals of Police, all Zonal Inspector Generals of Police, all Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, all Commissioners of Police, all Superintendents of Police and all Police Officials subordinate to them and upto the level of Police Constables (including Home Guards) and any other Police Officer in the State of Tamil Nadu performing in any way the election related duties, for the conduct of General Elections of Lok Sabha and Bye-Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 28-Alandur Assembly Constituency, to be held on the 24th of April, 2014 and all the said Officers shall be deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the period commencing on and from the date of the notification calling for the said elections and ending with the date of declaration of the results of the said elections..., and the subsequent Notification dated 5.4.2014 appointing Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal as the Director General of Police (Elections) satisfies the requirements of the Guidelines issued by the Election Commission dated 9.1.2014. According to the learned senior counsel, if there is any specific instance of non-cooperation of the police personnel or non-compliance of the commands/ directions of the Director General of Police (Elections), a complaint can be made to the Election Commission, and the Election Commission is competent to take appropriate action in this regard. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, this writ petition, which is based on mere apprehension, deserves to be dismissed.
7. Article 324 of the Constitution of India confers the power on the Election Commission for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and Legislature of every State and of elections to the Offices of President and Vice President held under the Constitution. It is well settled that the power of the Election Commission is plenary in nature. It is very wide and commences from the preparation of electoral rolls till the declaration of the election results. There is no quarrel that there are two limitations on the power of the Election Commission (a) that the Election Commission has to act in conformity with the law relating to or in connection with the elections made by Parliament or by any State Legislature; (b) that the Commission is responsible to the rule of law and as such, it has to act bona fide (See Mohinder Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner1, Kanhiya Lal Omar vs. R.K. Trivedi2 and Special Reference No.1 of 2002, In re Gujarat Assembly Election Matter3).
8. The petitioner has neither alleged nor proved mala fides to be exercised on the part of the Election Commission. It is also not the case of the petitioner that there is violation of any statutory provisions of law. The case of the petitioner is that there cannot be two Director Generals of Police in the State dealing with the same matter. However, in the instant case, the entire power in respect of the conduct of elections has been entrusted to the Director General of Police (Elections) and as such, there is no scope for any interference by the Director General of Police (Law & Order) in the functioning of the Director General of Police (Elections).
9. The Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No.260, Home (Pol.XIII) Department, dated 28.3.2014 makes it clear that all the police officers in the State, right from the Director General of Police, Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) upto the level of Police Constables (including Home Guards) who are engaged in the performance of the election related duties for the conduct of General Elections of Lok Sabha and Bye-Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for 28-Alandur Assembly Constituency, to be held on 24.4.2014 shall be deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the period commencing on and from the date of the notification calling for the said elections and ending with the date of declaration of the results of the said elections. It is also made clear that such Officers shall be subject to the control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission during that period.
10. The subsequent notification issued in Police Notice No.SC/10/2014, Home (SC) Department, dated 5.4.2014 which reads as under :
Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal, IPS, Director General of Police / Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited, Chennai is transferred and posted as Director General of Police (Elections), Tamil Nadu to attend to all election related works involving Police. All Field Police Officers in Tamil Nadu handling any election related arrangements/work shall report only to Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal, IPS, Director General of Police in charge of Elections till the completion of the election process in Tamil Nadu, reiterates that all Field Police Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu handling any election related arrangement/work shall report only to Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal, Director General of Police (Elections).
11. Reading both the aforesaid notifications jointly makes it clear that the apprehension of the writ petitioner that there may be undue interference or that the Director General of Police (Elections) may not perform his duty properly so as to ensure fair and independent elections is misconceived and cannot be countenanced. Needless to state that the issue of appointment of Thiru. K. Ramanujam on the post of Director General of Police (Law & Order) is not the subject matter of this writ petition, and the said issue has already been considered in Writ Petition No.31793 of 2012. The appointment has been upheld as valid. It is worthwhile to state that the order dated 5.4.2014 whereby and whereunder Thiru. Anoop Jaiswal was appointed as the Director General of Police (Elections) is not under challenge in this writ petition.
12. The decision of this Court in Pon Paramaguru vs. State of Tamil, 2006 (2) C.T.C. 241 and that of the Karnataka High Court in Election Commission of India vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. Nos.17123 of 2013 etc. dated 16.4.2013 cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the issue involved in the instant writ petition.
13. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.K.A., A.C.J.) (M.M.S., J.)
11th April, 2014
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
ab
To
1. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadhan,
New Delhi.
2. The State Chief Election Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
3. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Honble the Acting Chief Justice
and
M.M. Sundresh, J.
ab
Pre-Delivery Order in
Writ Petition No.10369 of 2014
Delivered on 11..04..2014