Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The dispute highlighted in this batch of writ petitions which have been referred to us by a learned single Judge relates to the de novo delimitation of wards in the various Grama Panchayats in the State by the State Election Commission (for short 'Election Commission') in the purported exercise of his power under Section 10A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') in flagrant violation of his own guidelines and well settled principles of law resulting in upsetting the delimitation of wards ordered by the District Collector -- who is the delegate of the Election Commission -- after an elaborate exercise of local inspection, publication of preliminary notification, final notification, hearing of affected parties etc. Petitioners allege that the Election Commission has done so with the mala fide intention of dancing to the tune of the political parties in power which amounts to gerrymandering and which is objectionable in law. It is, therefore, prayed that the orders of delimitation passed by the Election Commission under Section 10A of the Act be quashed as utterly mala fide, totally introducing new boundaries which are not there at all. In some cases prayers have been made to grant a declaration that Section 10A of the Act is arbitrary, unreasonable and confers ungulded power on the Election Commission and is therefore liable to be declared as unconstitutional.

5. The first contention of the respondents as already noticed is based on Article 243(o) of the Constitution which ousts thejurisdiction of the Courts in electoral matters and in particular Article 243(o)(a) by which 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 243(k) shall not be called in question in any Court. In other words, there is a bar of judicial review of the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243(k) of the Constitution. Under Article 243(k)(l) of the Constitution the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor, and under Sub-section (4) thereof subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. On an anxious consideration of the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel we are not impressed by the same for the following reasons : Article 243(o)(a) which bars the jurisdiction of any Court to consider the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies will not get attracted where sweeping changes are made by the Election Commission to the delimitation order duly passed and published by the District Collector after hearing objections etc., under the guise of the power of review conferred on him under Section 10A of the Act when the whole election process is yet to begin and there is ample time left to undo the harm done by the former. In such a situation, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at least for the limited purpose of testing the constitutional validity of the provision (Section 10A) under which the Election Commission has passed the impugned orders varying the original order of the District Collector without going into the merits of the order Itself. The whole object of division of every panchayat into constiencies (wards) under Section 10 of the Act is to ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation to the Grama Panchayat. The result of any election under a majority system depends in fact not only on the way people vote but on the way their votes are distributed among the constituencies/wards. It is, therefore, impermissible for the Election Commission to re-distribute the wards under Section 10A of the Act so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power to gain control over the local bodies, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Devilal. (1986) 1 SCC 657: (AIR 1986 SC 434) Paragraph 16). This is precisely what is focussed in these cases as is clear from the averments made in this batch of writ petitions as already observed. On the facts disclosed and upon perusal of files produced before us we have reasons to believe that the attempt of the Election Commission is to gerrymander the division of wards in such a way as to materially affect the constitution of the Panchayat resulting in undue advantage to one party in colourable exercise of its power under Section 10A of the Act. Therefore, where an election is slated to be held after subjecting the constituencies to 'gerrymander it could not be said that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. In Mohinder Gill case. AIR 1978 SC 851 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after posing the question as to whether Article 329(b)' of the Constitution (which is in pari materia with Article 243(o)(b) is a blanket ban on all manner of questions which may have impact on the ultimate result of the election arising between the notification by the President calling for the election and the declaration of the result by the Returning Officer and after considering Its earlier decision in the case of Ponnuswami, AIR 1952 SC 64 held that the plenary bar of Article 329fb) rests on two pirnciples : (1) The peremptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process wihout intermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the commencement and the conclusion. (2) The provision of a special jurisdiction (Article 329(b) is similar to Article 243(o)(b)) which can be invoked by an aggrieved party at the end of the election excludes other form, the right and remedy being creatures of statute and controlled by the Constitution. This position had already received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Durga Shanker Mehta case, AIR 1954 SC 520 way back in 1954 wherein the apex Court supplemented the same by holding that once Election Tribunal has decided, the prohibition is extinguished and the Supreme Court's overall power to interfere under Article 136 springs Into action. In Hari Vishnu, AIR 1955 SC 233 the apex Court upheld the rule in Ponnuswami, AIR 1952 SC 64 (supra) excluding any proceeding including one under Article 226, during the on going process of election, understood in the comprehensive sense of notification down to declaration. Beyond the declaration comes the election petition and beyond the decision of the Election Tribunal the ban of Article 329(b) does not bind. From the aforesaid decisions it is clear that the bar 1. 329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters--Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution xx xx xx (b) 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 of jurisdiction of the Courts arises between the notification by the competent authority calling for the election and the declaration of the results by the Returning Officer. A free and fair election based on universal adult franchise is the basic, the regulatory procedures are the specifices. The Act read with relevant provisions of the Constitution constitute the package of electoral law governing elections to the Grama Panchayats. The conduct of elections is in the hands of the Election Commission who is vested with vast powers in that regard. However, this power is not unbridled. Judicial review will still be permissible over the statutory body exercising its functions affecting public law rights. (Digvijay Mote v. Union of India, (1943) 4 SCC 175 : (1993 AIR SCW 2895 Para 9). We may, at this stage, usefully quote Judicial Remedies in Public Law-Clive Lewis, Page 70 :