Madras High Court
A.Babu Rao vs Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu on 20 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 (NOC) 13 (MADRAS)
Bench: Markandey Katju, A.Kulasekaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20/09/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN
W.P.No. 30473 of 2005
A.Babu Rao ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
High Court Campus,
Chennai - 600 104.
2. The Advocate General
High Court Buildings,
Chennai - 600 104. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a
Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to conduct re-poll in the
polling booths where large scale violations were reported by the observers or
others, in particular, in the pooling booths in Nagercoil and Tirunelveli
within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
!For Petitioner ::: Mr.P.Rathinam
For Respondents ::: Mr.V.Raghupathy
Government Pleader
:O R D E R
(The Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice) This petition has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to order re-polling in the polling booths where it is alleged large scale electoral violations have been reported by the observers, in particular, in the Districts of Nagercoil and Tirunelveli in the recent elections to the Tamil Nadu Bar Council held on 9.9.2005.
2. It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that once the election process has started the Court should not interfere vide Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 SCC 303, Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M.Hassan Uzzaman, AIR 1985 SC 1233, Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commissioner, AIR 1996 SC 1595, etc.
3. In our opinion although Art.329 (b) of the Constitution only relates to the elections held for Parliament or the State Legislative Assemblies, the principle of that provision also applies to elections held under statutes such as Municipal Elections, Panchayat Elections, etc. Even regarding such elections, in our opinion, once the election process has commenced, the Court should not interfere until the election results are declared, and even then the Court can come into the picture only when an election petition is filed under the relevant statutory provision, or if there is no such provision for filing an election petition, then by filing a civil suit. Hence a writ petition should not be entertained. It is well settled that writ is discretionary jurisdiction vide Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (SC) 20 (vide paragraph 42), R.Nanjappan v. District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 Writ L.R 47, etc. Hence in our opinion the High Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution once the election process has started, even though there may not be an express bar as in Article 329(b).
4. As observed by the Supreme Court in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64: -
"It has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to the time schedule, and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted"
5. The same view has been repeated in Umesh Shivappa Ambi v. Angadi Shekava Basappa, AIR 1999 SC 1566, Kalla Ramakrishna v. State Election Commission, 2005 (26) All India Cases page 764,etc.
6. The above principle has been repeatedly reiterated by the Supreme Court and yet it is unfortunate that many High Courts in this Country are interfering with the election process mid-way although the election results have not been declared.
7. Judicial discipline requires the High Courts to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court under Art.141 of the Constitution of India.
8. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that High Courts cannot interfere with the election process once it has commenced, and can come into the picture only when the results thereof are declared, and that too by way of an election petition at the instance of the aggrieved person, or if there is no provision for filing such election petition then by way of a civil suit, we dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable.
9. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to challenge the elections to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after the results are declared by filing an election petition, if there is such a provision in the relevant rules, or, if there is no such provision then by way of a civil suit.
10. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.
Index:Yes Internet:Yes Jai/pv