Manipur High Court
Langhu Paulhring vs Election Commission Of India & on 8 March, 2022
Author: Lanusungkum Jamir
Bench: Lanusungkum Jamir
1
Supp Item No. 1
WP(C) No. 179 of 2022
Langhu Paulhring ....Petitioner
-Versus-
Election Commission of India &
2 Ors ....Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR (Video Conference) 08.03.2021 Heard Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.A.Jagjit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
[2] The Election Commission of India issued a Press Note on 8.1.2022 announcing the Schedule for the 12th General Election to the Manipur Legislative Assembly. In the said Schedule, the General Election was to be held under two phases, the first phase on 27.2.2022 and the second phase on 3.3.2022.
By another Press Note dated 10.02.2022, the dates of poll of General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Manipur was revised and first phase of poll was revised to 28.02.2022 and second phase to 5.3.2022.
[3] The present writ petitioner No.1 is a candidate from the Naga Peoples Front (NPF) from 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency for the 12th General Election to the Manipur Legislative Assembly and the petitioner No.2 is the Chief Agent of the petitioner WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 2 No.1. The other candidate from the 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency is from the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The date of polling for the 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency as revised by the Press Note dated 10.02.2022, was held on 5.3.2022.
[4] The petitioner alleging malpractice/Booth capturing/Booth ragging, large scale irregularity has approached this Court by way of the writ petition with the following prayers:
" (i) To admit the present writ petition.
(ii) To issue rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why prayer made by the petitioners shall not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ directions/ orders, directing the respondents to declare the poll at 1) 41/15 Aihang P/S, 2) 41/16 Charangching Khullen P/S, 3) 41/42 Sugnu Tribal P/S, 4) 41/43 Boijang Tampak P/S, 5) 41/44 Sugnu Lamching P/S, 6) 41/45 Sugnu Lamhang P/S, 7) 41/48 Y.Thingkangphei P/S, 8) 41/57 Longja P/S, 9) 41/58 Teejang P/S, 10) 41/61 Paldai P/S 11), 41/62 Molphei P/S, 12) 44/64 Khangbarol P/S, 13) 41/65 Lamphel P/S 14) 41/66 Savompha P/S,
15) 41/67 New Songjang P/S, 16) 41/8 Sajik Tampak P/S, 17) 41/69 Joupi P/S, 18) 41/70 Changpoi PS, 19) 41/71 Gamphajol PS, 20) 41/72 Khengjoy P/S, 21) 41/73 Sehlon P/S, 22) 41/74 Hengshi P/S, 23) 41/75 Aishi P/S,
24) 41/76 Moingat P/S, 25) 41/77 Wayang P/S, 26) 41/78 Yangoulen P/S 27) 41/79 Molcham P/S, 28) 41/80 New Samtal P/S, 29( 41/1 Purum Pantha P/S, 30) 41/2 Purum Khullen P/S, 31) 41/3 Wangparal P/S, 32) 41/4 Salemthar P/S, 33) 41/5 Thamlapokpi P/S, 34) 41/6 Heigru Tampak P/S, 35) 41/5 Thamlapokpi P/S, 36(41/7, Leipung Tampak P/S and 37) 41/8 Thamla Khure P/S,
38) 41/9 Lamkang Khunou, 39) 41/10 Betuk Shangreng, WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 3
40) 41/11 Mitong P/S, 41) 41/12; Tarao Leimanai, 42) 41/13 Liwa Sarei P/S, 43) 41/22: Angkhel Chayang P/S,
46) 41/23: Monsang Mantha P/S, 47) 41/24: Japhou P/S,
48) 41/25: Konjon P/S, 49) 41/26: Mantri Pantha P/S, 50) 41/31: Mahao Tera P/S, 51) 41/33: Larong Khunou P/S,
52) 41/46: Toupokpi P/S and 53) 41/52: Paraolon P/S under 41 Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency to be null & void, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present petition and to consider and dispose off the letter/ complaint/ application dated 5.3.2022 (At annexure A/8 (colly)) by issuing reason and speaking order as per law on or before 10th March, 2022.
(iv) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ directions/ orders, directing the respondents to conduct fresh poll/re-poll respect of 1) 41/15 Aihang P/S, 2) 41/16 Charangching Khullen P/S, 3) 41/42 Sugnu Tribal P/S, 4) 41/43 Boljang Tampak P/S, 5) 41/44 Sugnu Lamching P/S, 6) 41/45 Sugnu Lamhang P/S, 7) 41/48 Y.Thingkangphei P/S, 8) 41/57 Longja P/S, 9) 41/58 Teejang P/S, 10) 41/61 Paldai P/S, 11) 41/62 Molphei P/s, 12) 41/64 Khangbarol P/S, 13) 41/65 Lamphel P/S,
14) 41/66 Savompha P/S, 15) 41/67 New Songjang P/S,
16) 41/8 Sajik Tampak P/S 17) 41/69 Joupi P/S, 18) 41/70 Changpoi P/S, 19) 41/71 Gamphajol P/S, 20) 41/72 Khengjoy P/S, 21) 41/73 Sehlon P/S, 22) 41/74 Hengshi P/S, 23) 41/75 Aishi P/S, 24) 41/76 Moingat P/S, 25) 41/77 Wayang P/S, 26) 41/78 Yangoulen P/S
27) 41/79 Molcham P/S, 28) 41/80 New Samtal P/S, 29) 41/1 Purum Pantha P/S 30) 41/2 Purum Khullen P/S, 31) 41/3 Wangparal P/S, 32) 41/4 Salemthar PS, 33) 41/5 Thamlapokpi P/S, 34) 41/6 Heigru Tampak P/S, 35) 41/5 Thamlapokpi P/S, 36) 41/7 Leipung Tampak P/S and 37) 41/8 Thamla Khuren P/S, 38) 41/9 Lamkang Khunou, 39) 41/10 Betuk Shangreng, 40) 41/11 Mitong P/S, 41) 41/12: Tarao Leimanai, 42) 41/13: Liwa Sarei P/S, 43) 41/14: Leingangching, 44) 41/16: Charangching Khullen P/S, 45) 41/22: Angkhel Chayang P/S, 46) 41/23:
Monsang Pantha P/S, 47) 41/24: Japhou P/S, 48) 41/25: Kongjon P/S 49) 41/26: Mantri Pantha P/S, 50) 41/31: Mahao Tera P/S, 51) 41/33: Larong Khunou P/S, 52) 41/46: Toupokpi P/S and 53) 41/52: Paraolon P/S under WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 4 41 Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
(v) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/ Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ directions/ orders, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations/ letters/ application/ complaint dated 5.3.2022 (At Annexure A/8 (Colly) submitted by the petitioners by issuing reason and speaking order on or before 10th March, 2022 as per law, in view of the f acts and circumstances of the present petition.
(vi) If no cause is shown or insufficient cause is shown, make the rule absolute.
(vii) To call for the entire relevant records.
(viii) To pass any order/ writ/ directions which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
[5] The main grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is summarized at Para 7 and 8 of the preset writ petition which is also reproduced hereinbelow:
"7. That, in Second Phase poll on 05.03.2022 in respect of many several polling stations under 41- Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency, there are instances of large scale irregularities, illegalities, malpractices, act of arbitrariness, favouritism, bias, no free & fair election, unlawfully taken away of EVM used at polling stations, EVM used at polling stations were tampered with, where the result of the poll cannot be ascertained and vitiated the poll. The following polling stations has been rampantly captured by unknown miscreants and polling offices in collaboration with BJP workers, which are explained briefly below.
i) 41/1 Purum Pantha: Polling Agents are not allowed to enter the polling room by undergrounds/ miscreants. All the NPF WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 5 supporters are chased out by the gang of arms group.
ii) 41/2 Purum Khullen: Polling Agents are not allowed to enter the polling room by undergrounds/ miscreants. All the NPF supporters are chased out by the gang of arms group.
iii) 41/3 Wangparal: Gang of arms group threatened all the supporters of NPF and polling agents when NPF candidate Langhu Paulhring Anal along with St. Victor Nunghlung Ex-MLA visited the area they were attacked by group of people in front of security personnel.
iv) 41/4 Salemthar: Arms Group ceased all the voter slips and cast in favour of BJP candidate in the presences of security personnel and polling officers.
v) 41/5 Thamlapokpi: All the Polling Agents of NPF were denied entry to the polling booth.
One person stood by the EVM and cast all the votes in favour of BJP.
vi) 41/6 Heigru Tampak: All the Polling Agents of NPF were denied entry to the polling booth, CCTVs were turn off during the process and only Lotus Symbol is made seen in the EVM. Cock Symbol in respect of NPF Candidate (Petitioner No.1 herein) is blocked/ covered by cello tape & hard paper.
vii) 41/5 Thamlapokpi: Arms group ceased Voter slips and denied the Polling Agents of NPF to enter the polling booth.
viii) 41/7 Leipung Tampak: Arms group used guns to threaten NPF Supporters and Agents of NPF to enter the polling booth.
WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 6
ix) 41/8 Thamlakhuren: Arms group with sophisticated weapons intimidated all the voters and NPF agents to leave the premises of the polling station.
True copies of the said real position of EVM during the day of polling on 5.3.2022 in polling stations under 41- Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure A/5 (colly).
8. That, it is further stated that 16 Polling stations mention below, dominated by Naga are controlled by Armed miscreant, arranging 20-30 volunteers forcing them to cast the votes for BJP:
1. 41/9: Lamkang Khunou
2. 41/10: Betuk Shangreng
3. 41/11: Mitong P/S
4. 41/12: Tarao Leimanai
5. 41/13: Liwa Sarei P/S
6. 41/14: Leingangching
7. 41/16: Charangching Khullen P/S
8. 41/22: Angkhel Chayang P/S
9. 41/23: Monsang Pantha P/S 10.41/24: Japhou P/S 11.41/25: Kongjon P/S 12.41/26: Mantri Pantha P/S 13.41/31: Mahao Tera P/S 14.41/33: Larong Khunou P/S 15.41/46: Toupokpi P/S 16.41/52: Paraolon P/S Furthermore, 28 (twenty eight) Kuki dominated polling stations were controlled by the banned militant groups under Suspension of Operation (SoO) and captured all the voting slips, EVM were hijacked, only Lotus Symbol is made seen in EVM and Cock Symbol in respect of NPF candidate (petitioner No.1 herein) is blocked/covered by cello tap & hard paper. Again, most of the CCTVs installed in polling stations are made unoperational/ defunct and intimidated the NPF Polling WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 7 Agents to leave the Polling Stations or face the severe consequences, if seen around the polling stations. The aforesaid polling stations includes as follows: i) 41/15 Aihang P/S, ii) 41/16 Charangching Khullen P/S, iii) 41/42 Sugnu Tribal PS, iv) 41/43 Boljang Tampak P/S, v) 41/44 Sugnu Lamching P/S, vi) 41/45 Sugnu Lamhang P/S, vii) 41/48 Y.Thingkangphei P/S, viii) 41/57 Longja P/S, ix) 41/58 Teejang P/S, x) 41/61 Paldai P/S, xi) 41/62 Molphei P/S, xii) 41/64 Khangbarol P/S, xiii) 41/65 Lamphel P/S, xiv) 41/66 Savompha P/S, xv) 41/67 New Songjang P/S xvi) 41/8 Sajik Tampak P/S, xvii) 41/69 Joupi P/S, xviii) 41/70 Changpoi P/S, xix) 41/71 Gamphajol P/S, xx) 41/72 Khengjoy P/S, xxi) 41/73 Sehlon P/S, xxii) 41/74 Hengshi P/S, xxviii) 41/75 Aishi P/S, xxiv ) 41/76 Moingat P/S, xxv) 41/77 Wayag P/S, xxvi) 41/78 Yangoulen P/S, xxvii) 41/79 Molcham P/S, and xxxviii) 41/80 New Samtal P/S."
[6] Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India provides Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters and no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.
[7] In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"92. Diffusion, even more elaborate discussion, tends to blur the precision of the conclusion in a judgment and so it is meet that we, synopsize the formulations. Of course, the condensed statement we make is for convenience, not for exclusion of the relevance or attenuation of the binding impact of the detailed argumentation. For this limited purpose, we set down our holdings:
WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 8 (1) (a) Art. 329(b) is a blanket ban on litigative challenges to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and its officers for carrying forward the process of election to its culmination in the formal declaration of the result.
(b) Election, in this context, has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating in the final declaration of the returned candidate..
(2) (a) The Constitution, contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on the circumstances.
(b) Two limitations at least are laid on its plenary character in the exercise thereof. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law, relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission shall act in conformity with, not in violation of such provisions but where such law is silent Art. 324 is a reservoir of power to, act for the avowed purpose of, not divorced from pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition.
Secondly, the Commission shall be responsible to the rule of law, act bona fide and be amenable to the norms of natural justice in so far as conformance to such canons can reasonably and realistically be required of it as fairplay-in-action in a most important area of the constitutional order, viz., elections. Fairness does import an obligation to see that no wrongdoer candidate benefits by his own- wrong. To put the matter beyond doubt, natural justice enlivens and applies to the specific case of order for total repoll, although. not in full penoply but in full penoply but in flexible practicability. Whether it has been compiled with is left open for the Tribunal's adjudication.
WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 9 (3). The conspectus of provisions bearing on the subject of elections clearly expresses the rule that there is a remedy for every wrong done during the election in progress although it is postponed to the post election stage and procedure as predicated in Art. 329(b) and the 1951 Act. The Election Tribunal has, under the various provisions of the Act, large enough powers to give relief to an injured candidates if he makes out a case and such processual amplitude of power extends to directions to the Election Commission or other appropriate agency to hold a poll, to bring up the ballots or do other thing necessary for fulfilment of the jurisdiction to undo illegality and injustice and do complete justice within the parameters set by the existing law.
93. In sum, a pragmatic modus vivendi between the Commission's paramount constitutional responsibility vis- a-vis elections and the rule of law vibrant with fair acting by every authority and remedy for every right breached, is reached.
94. We conclude stating that the bar of Art. 329(b) is as wide as the door of Section 100 read with Section 98. The writ petition is dismissible but every relief (given factual proof) now prayed for in the pending election petition is within reach. On this view of the law ubi jus ibi remeditum is vindicated, election injustice is avoided, and the constituency is allowed to speak effectively. In the light of and conditioned by the law we have laid down, we dismiss the appeal. Where the dispute which spirals to this Court is calculated to get a clarification of tile legal calculus in an area of national moment, the parties are the occasion but the people are the beneficiaries, and so costs must not be visited on a particular person. Each party will bear his own costs."
[8] Again in the case of Manda Jaganath Vs K.S.Rathnam & Ors reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 10 "14. The word 'election' has been judicially defined by various authorities of this Court to mean any and every act taken by the competent authority after the publication of the election notification.
15. In Ponnuswami this Court held :(AIR p.68, para 9) "The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition.
16. The above view of this Court in Ponnuswami case has been quoted with approval by the subsequent judgment in M.S. Gill (supra) wherein this Court after quoting the passages from the said judgment in Ponnuswami case held that there is a non- obstante clause in Article 329 and, therefore, Article 226 stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election, except in special situations pointed out but left unexplored in Ponnuswami case. It is while considering the above unexplored situations in Ponnuswami in M.S. Gill's case this Court held thus :
"34. This dilemma does not arise in the wider view we take of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. Sri Rao's attack on the order impugned is in substance based on alleged non-compliance with a provision of the Constitution viz., Article 324 but is neatly covered by the widely-worded, residual catch-all clause of Section 100. Knowing the supreme significance of speedy elections in our system the framers of the Constitution have, by implication postponed all election disputes to election petitions and tribunals. In harmony with this scheme Section 100 of the Act has been designedly drafted to embrace all conceivable infirmities which may be urged. To make the project fool-proof Section 100(1)(d)(iv) has been WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 11 added to absolve everything left over. The Court has in earlier rulings pointed out that Section 100 is exhaustive of all grievances regarding an election."
[9] Confronted with the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and with the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respect, Mr.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner withdraws all the prayers made in the present writ petition except prayer (v) which is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ/direction or order directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation/letters/applications complaint dated 5.3.2022.
[10] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after considering all the irregularities that has occurred on the date of polling, the petitioner No.1 made a complaint before the Returning Officer, 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency on 5.3.2022 alleging random proxy polling in several polling stations. Again on 6.3.2022 the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 submitted a joint complaint to the Chief Election Officer (CEO) Manipur requesting to direct the Returning Officer (RO) of 41-Chadel (ST) Assembly Constituency for rampant proxy poll in various Polling Stations. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 also made another representation/complaint before the Chief Election Commission of India, Government of India on 5.3.2022. He submits that as the petitioner No.1 is a candidate in the 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency and has made a complaint before the concerned Electoral Officers on the rampant proxy polling as well as irregularities/illegalities/malpractices, he has a right to know as to whether the complaint made by him has been considered by the WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 12 Electoral Officers concerned. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance in the case of 1) All India Statutory Corporation etc Vs United Labour Union & Ors reported in AIR 1997 SC 645, 2) State of U.P Vs Raj Narain & Ors reported in (1975) 4 SCC 428, 3) People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr Vs Union of India & Another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 1, 4) Sharif Ahmad & Ors Vs Regional Transport Authority, Meerut reported in (1978) 1 SCC 1, 5) U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr Vs Mohd Ismail & Ors reported in (1991) 3 SCC 239, 6) Lakshman Singh Vs State of Bihar reported in (2021) 9 SCC 191.
[11] Mr.Jagjit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while not denying the fact that the Returning Officer and the Chief Election Officer have both received the complaint dated 5.3.2022 and 6.3.2022 made by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, however, submits that the conduct of election on 5.3.2022 as regards 41- Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency was conducted under strict surveillance in the presence of the Observers which was deputed by the Election Commission of India, particularly keeping in mind that the 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency was categorised as Critical and Vulnerable Polling Stations. If the allegations made by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were correct, the Observers, the Returning Officer as well as the Presiding Officer of the various Polling Stations would have reported to the Chief Electoral Officer about such incidence. However, no report was made inasmuch as no such allegations were found to be correct. He also submits that on 6.3.2022, scrutiny was done where all the EVMs/papers/Certificates/ reports made by the Presiding Officer/ Security Personnel were considered in the presence of the Candidates of 41-Chandel (ST) Assembly Constituency, wherein the petitioner No.1 and No.2 were WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL 13 also present. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were given opportunity to pinpoint where the irregularity had occurred in presence of the Observers. However, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were silent and did not raise any objections. Under such circumstance, he submits, that there was no necessity for considering the representation/complaint made by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
[12] After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the learned senior counsel has withdrawn all his prayers except the prayer number (v) in the present writ petition, this Court while keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to Article 329 (b) of Constitution, is constraint not to entertain prayer (v) of the present Writ Petition particularly when the petitioners No.1 and No.2 did not made any objections on 6.3.2022. The citations relied upon by the learned senior Advocate for the petitioners has also been considered by this Court. However, in the present facts and circumstances of the case they are found not to be applicable.
[13] Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No cost.
Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for all the parties through their respective e-mails/whatsapp.
JUDGE
Priyojit
Digitally signed by KH.
KH. JOSHUA JOSHUA MARING
MARING Date: 2022.03.09
23:27:56 +05'30'
WP(C) NO.179 OF 2022 ORAL