Madras High Court
Logu Iyyappan vs District Election Officer on 15 November, 2016
Author: N. Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.40025 of 2016 and
W.M.P.No.34084 of 2016
Logu Iyyappan
President,
Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam
No.3, Thanthai Periyar Govt. Girls High School Street
Radhakrishnan Nagar, Ariyankuppam
Puducherry-605 007 [ Petitioner ]
Vs
District Election Officer
Officer on Special Duty (Elections)
District Election Office
Puducherry [Respondents]
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of rejection passed in No. DEO/RO/ BENAC-17/Permn. /2016/80, dated 11.11.2016 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner for propagation and canvass by vehicle campaign and door to door campaign from 14.11.2016 to 17.11.2016 in the area of Nellithope Assembly Constituency, Puducherry for Bye-election to be held on 19.11.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Harin
Addl. Govt. Pleader (P)
O R D E R
There cannot be any selective amnesia in the fight against religious superstitions. In the guise of fighting against such religious practices or religious sentiments or superstitions, social organisations and political parties should not venture to hurt the religious sentiments of any person and if at all, the fight should be a uniform one, without any, discrimination, whatsoever. That apart, the said parties themselves should be secular and their acts should be secular. The petitioner, in this case, is stated to be one such party.
2. Hate Politics is a reality in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. It is disheartening to note that politics of hatred is practised by politicians by making defamatory speeches, malicious representations, filing vexatious cases against the leaders of opposite parties, verbal abuse, physical attacks, political murders, etc. This kind of adversarial atmosphere, which is prevalent, is encouraged by top leaders of various political parties in Tamil Nadu and the trend should be arrested. Here is a case, which speaks about hate politics.
3. This Court, earlier, in the judgment rendered in K.G. Uthayakumar V. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2015 (3) CTC 746, had deprecated the adversarial political atmosphere and hate politics in our State. The following paragraphs of the said judgment are usefully extracted as hereunder:
16. This case only demonstrates as to how politics is played. The petitioner's attempt is to gain publicity and recognition. He wants to find fault with opposition leader somehow and invented allegation of violation. The action of the petitioner in filing this case is nothing but manifestation of HATE POLITICS. Since the present proceedings is the result of hate politics, this Court is constrained to incidentally consider the said issue. The political parties can be opposing parties and they cannot be enemical parties. Such animosity is being cultivated, totally losing sight that they represent people's cause. If a ruling party loses the elections, the outgoing Chief Minister neither participates in the official swearing-in function of the new Government nor participates in the newly constituted assembly and discharges the democratic duty, even though he or she is elected as a member of Legislative Assembly. It is very unfortunate that the leaders neither exchange pleasantries nor participate together in any function including official functions. The cadres are taking cue from the conduct of their leaders also exhibit similar adversarial reaction.
17. Days of Rajaji-Periyar, Kamarajar-Anna, healthy politics had gone by and adversarial atmosphere has come into existence right from 70s in Tamil Nadu. It is very common in the meetings of political parties, broad attacks are being made personally abusing opposition party leaders using intemperate, disrespectful and inappropriate language in derogatory manner, which an ordinary man cannot even imagine. The sad part of it is that the attacks are being made in the presence of top leaders, who also seem to enjoy the offensive remarks/allegations made against opposition leaders. Whether one likes it or not, it is a true state of affairs.
18. It is a stark reality that obscene, personal, defamatory, humiliating, disgusting remarks/allegations are being thrown against the leaders, their people and friends throwing the democratic values, decency to wind. Even for trivial issues, in local bodies, exchange of vulgar statements/remarks and blows among councillors are very common nowadays. The healthy politics of yester years has become a history now, replaced by inimical, violent, and unhealthy political practices and they only fight to catch power by hook or crook. In the process, the victims are Democracy, Nationand Poor Citizens.
4. Now, coming to the case on hand, the Association, of which the petitioner is the President, is alleged to be a non political organisation. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the respondent refusing to give permission for vehicle campaign and door to door campaign from 14.11.2016t to 17.11.2016 in the area of Nellithope Assembly Constituency, Puducherry for the Bye-election to be held on 19.11.2016.
5. The petitioner contends that it is a non political organisation and it intends to propagate and canvass votes in favour of a particular political party and not to vote for the Congress candidate, which party is the ruling party in Puducherry Union Territory and the said candidate is the present Chief Minister Mr.Narayanasamy. The petitioner made a request on 10.11.2016 to grant permission for fixing the loud speaker in the vehicle bearing No.TATA ACE PY 01 BM 5396 and to issue pamphlets and door canvass from 14.11.2016 to 17.11.2016. The request of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 11.11.2016, stating that the permission cannot be granted. The said order is being challenged before this Court by way of this writ petition.
6. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.R.Harin, learned Additional Government Pleader (P), who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
7. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a non political organisation which believes in secular values and it is against the Congress party. The aim of the Organisation is to eradicate superstitious religious beliefs. Further, he would point out from the impugned order that no reason, whatsoever, has been given by the respondent as to why the petitioner's request was rejected.
8. On the other hand, Mr.Harin, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent relying upon clause 5.4 of the Hand Book of the Candidates issued by the Election Commission would submit that permission to use the vehicle campaign should be applied only through the candidate or through his Agent and the petitioner cannot independently seek any permission and that was the reason why the impugned order was passed.
9. The petitioner is a non political organisation, interested in fighting against religious superstitions. It should be welcomed, provided the fight against religious superstitions is secular. Many non-political parties, though claim that their fight against religious superstitions is a secular one, but, in reality, they do not give the impression that they are partisan.
10. However, as far as the election campaign is concerned, it is governed by the rules and regulations issued by the Election Commission of India. After 1990s, the election process in India has been made effective, in view of effective steps taken by the erstwhile Election Commissioner and thereafter, strict norms have been fixed. The expenses incurred during the election have been fixed and all the candidates have been directed to submit their accounts, so that corruption in the administration is eradicated at the base level itself. Otherwise, the politicians , who spend crores of rupees for campaign during elections for getting elected would be, naturally, interested in getting back the money spent with interest and multiples, resulting in most of the elected representatives indulging in corrupt practices, within the five year term. With the laudable object to curb such corrupt practices only, expenses regarding campaign have been restricted and nobody is allowed to violate the election laws as any violation would lead to disqualification of the elected candidates. When that is the position, the Election Commission, rightly, in clause 5.4 of Hand Book of Candidates, has stated that any permission for election campaign should be obtained only through the candidate or his agent.
11. Clause 5.4 of the Hand Book of Candidates is usefully extracted hereunder:-
5.4 There is no restriction of number of vehicles which you may use for election campaign. However, no vehicle can be used without obtaining valid permission: You should submit the details of all such vehicles that you may be using in the election campaign before the District Election Officer or such other officer(s) as may be specifically authorized by the District Election Officer in this behalf before the campaigning commences and should obtain permits in respect of such vehicles. Any further deployment of additional vehicles by you can take place only after you and your election agent have submitted details of such additional vehicles and obtain permits such additional vehicles well before the actual deployment. While submitting the details of the vehicles that are being deployed for election campaign the details of the areas in which such vehicles would operate, should also be furnished. Expenditure incurred on all such vehicles which are used for election campaign shall be booked against the election expenditure of the candidate.
12. The above clause 5.4 has been inserted only for the benefit of the public and to prohibit corrupt practices. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be independently allowed to campaign for any candidate. If independent campaigners are allowed to campaign, the candidates would be using it as an alternative method to use them by excluding that campaign from their expenditure and the very purpose of clause 5.4 will be frustrated. Therefore, permission has been rightly denied by the respondent. It is open to the petitioner to make representation through his candidate or his agent in whose favour the petitioner is going to campaign.
13. No doubt the impugned order does not give any reason for such rejection. When a Hand Book given to the candidates speaks about various regulations, the election Officer should have been well versed with those provisions. When there is an enabling clause, if the respondent failed to give reasons, for non-stating of reasons, the Courts may some times stay the order and consequently stay the election process also. Therefore, onerous responsibility is cast upon the Election Officer to be vigilant while passing orders especially in the election process. Though the order is not sustainable and is to be quashed, for non disclosure of reasons, that will not give a right to the petitioner to campaign independently. Eventhough the order is not sustainable, still, this Court can deny the relief to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to apply through candidate in whose favour the petitioner intends to campaign.
14. Before parting with the Order, this Court would like to state that the politics in our States and Union Territories is not cordial and friendly and that has been exhibited in various incidents. Only hate politics is practised by political parties in the South unlike the North politicians. The contention of the petitioner that they intend to make campaign against the Congress itself is an exhibition of hate politics. If they intend to favour any political party, they are at liberty to do so, but aversion to a political party is not good for our democracy and the same is deprecated.
15. This Court hopes that not only hate politics is shunned and political leaders, in the interest of people, endeavour to create a better political atmosphere for proper functioning of democracy, but also, all the organisations, including political parties, are expected to be secular without hurting the religious sentiments or religious practices of the people. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.11.2016 rg (Note to Office: Issue order copy by 17.11.2016) To District Election Officer Officer on Special Duty (Elections) District Election Office Puducherry N. KIRUBAKARAN,J.
rg W.P.No.40025 of 2016 15.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in