Kerala High Court
Biju.R vs Kerala State Election Commission on 25 November, 2020
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.25783 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER:
BIJU.R, AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF P.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, CHANDRAVILAS,
I.T.I JUNCTION, CHENGANNUR P.O, PIN - 689121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, L.M.S JUNCTION,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.
2 RETURNING OFFICER CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER
(CHENGANNUR), M-04013, CHENGANNUR
MUNICIPALITY, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
CHENGANNUR - 689121.
3 CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CHENGANNUR - 689121.
OTHER PRESENT:
SC. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,GP. C.M NAZAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-11-2020, THE COURT ON 25-11-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020
..2..
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2020
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has submitted nomination for the election to Chengannur Municipality from Ward No.ITI 16. The nomination submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Returning Officer on 21.11.2020 as per Ext.P3 order holding that the information furnished by the petitioner in Form 2A part of the nomination were mutually destructive and incomplete and that his conviction in CC No.6 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Chengannur has not been stayed. The case of the petitioner is that 20.11.2020 being the date fixed for scrutiny of the nominations, if the nomination of the petitioner was one to be rejected for any reason, it should have been done by the Returning Officer on 20.11.2020, and not anytime thereafter. It is also the case of the petitioner that no body has raised any objection against W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020 ..3..
the acceptance of his nomination at the time of the scrutiny and in the absence of any objection against the acceptance of the nomination, the Returning Officer ought not have rejected his nomination. It is the further case of the petitioner that at any rate he should have been heard by the Returning Officer before rejecting his nomination. The petitioner, therefore challenges Ext.P3 order on those grounds in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, in the light of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution, the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Article 243-O of the Constitution reads thus:
"243-O. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.--W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020
..4..
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,--
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State."
It is seen that the question whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to challenge an improper rejection of a nomination paper, while the election is in progress, has been answered in the negative by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist [AIR 1952 SC 64], in the context of the pari materia provision in Article 329(b) of the Constitution, holding that irregularities vitiating the election cannot be made the subject matter of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [AIR 1978 SC 851], another Constitution Bench of the Apex W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020 ..5..
Court however demarcated the area which is available for interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant passage of the judgment dealing with the same reads thus:
"But what is banned is not anything whatsoever done or directed by the Commissioner but everything he does or directs in furtherance of the election, not contrary wise. For example, after the President notifies the nation on the holding of elections under S.15 and the Commissioner publishes the calender for the poll under S.30, if the latter orders Returning Officers to accept only one nomination or only those which come from one party as distinguished from other parties or independents, is that order immune from immediate attack. We think not. Because the Commissioner is preventing anelection, not promoting it and the Court's review of that order will facilitate theflow, not stop the stream. Election, wide or narrow be its connotation, means choice from a possible plurality monolithic politics not being our genius or reality, and if that concept is crippled by the Commissioner's act, he holds no election at all."
In Manda Jaganath v. K.S.Rathnam and thers [AIR 2004 SC 3600], after referring to Mohinder Singh Gill, the Apex Court held, in the context of a decision taken by the Returning Officer in W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020 ..6..
declining to allot to a candidate the symbol reserved for his political party, that the question whether the Returning Officer is justified in taking such a decision is not a matter for the High Court to decide in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Paragraph 12 of the judgment in the said case dealing with the said conclusion reads thus:
12. In our opinion, whether the Returning Officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only.
After arriving at the conclusion aforesaid, referring to the passage from Mohinder Singh Gill extracted above, the Apex Court has explained in Manda Jaganath, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution thus:
"Of course, what is stated by this Court hereinabove is not exhaustive of a Returning Officer's possible erroneous action which are amenable to correction in the writ jurisdiction of the Courts. But the fact remains that such errors should have the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the progress of the election which is the paramount consideration. If by an erroneous order conduct of the election is not hindered then the Courts under Art.226 of the Constitution should W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020 ..7..
not interfere with the orders of the Returning Officers, remedy for which lies in an election petition only."
In the light of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that only if the impugned decision/action has the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the progress of the election, this court would be justified in entertaining the writ petition.
The case on hand does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement of law. The sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P3 order cannot be considered in this proceedings while the election is in progress. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the decision impugned in the writ petition in an election petition instituted in accordance with the relevant statute.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
ds W.P.(C) No.25783 of 2020 ..8..
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOMINATION PAPER DATED 16.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE DATED
16.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3-3000/2020
DATED 21.11.2020 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2019
IN CC NO.6/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, CHENGANNUR.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2019 IN
CRL.M.P 5791/2019 IN CRA.APPEAL
178/2019 ON THE FILE OF SESSIONS
COURT, ALAPPUZHA.