Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: democracy in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs The State Election Commissioner on 12 January, 2007Matching Fragments
11. Mr.Jothi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-AIADMK, led the arguments. According to him, the election having not been conducted in the manner it should have been conducted, cannot be termed to be an election in the eye of law. The complaints made by candidates, criminal cases as instituted, the ballot papers as produced, were referred to suggest that there was complete chaos on 13.10.06; mass violence took place; almost all the booths were captured and ballot papers were looted and polled in favour of one political party i.e., the 5h respondent. The right to vote, according to him, was infringed and the basic principle of free and fair election, therefore, did not take place on 13.10.06. The statutory as well as constitutional right to vote and the right to expression such as to vote in favour of one or other candidate being fundamental, the incidents has affected the fundamental right of the public in general and, thereby, a public interest litigation is maintainable. It was also submitted that democracy being the basic structure of our Constitution, periodical free and fair election being the substratum of democracy, Court should interfere with the same, if the same is attacked by rowdy elements at the instance of the ruling political party.
32. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. - Vs - Chief Election Commissioner , New Delhi & Others reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 :: AIR 1978 SC 851, the philosophy of election in a democracy was highlighted in paragraph-23 of the judgment, as quoted hereunder :
"23. Democracy is government by the people. It is continual participative operation, not a cataclysmic, periodic exercise. The little man, in his multitude, marking his vote at the poll does a social audit of his Parliament plus political choice of his proxy. Although the full flower of participative Government rarely blossoms, the minimum credential of popular government is appeal to the people after every term for a renewal of confidence. So we have adult franchise and general elections as constitutional compulsions. The right of election is the very essence of the constitution' (Junius). It needs little argument to hold that the heart of the Parliamentary system is free and fair election periodically held, based on adult franchise, although social and economic democracy may demand much more."
33. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan - Vs - Zachillhu reported in 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651, wherein the Court held:
"179. Democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution; and rule of law, and free and fair elections are basic features of democracy. One of the postulates of free and fair elections is provision for resolution of election disputes as also adjudication of disputes relating to subsequent disqualifications by an independent authority."
34. In Gujarat Assembly Election matter reported in 2002 (8) SCC 237, the Supreme Court noticed the debate of constituent assembly while enacting Article 324. Having noticed the statement of Dr.B.R.Ambdekar before the constituent assembly, the Supreme Court observed that by enacting Article 324, the superintendence, direction, control and conduct of election was no more left in the hands of executive but was entrusted to an autonomous constitutional authority (i.e.) the Election Commission. The Supreme Court further held that democracy is a basic structure of the Constitution and periodical, free and fair election is the substratum of democracy. If there is no free and fair periodical election, it is end of democracy.
"338. The following observations in para 198 of the judgment in Indira Nehru Gandhi (India Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1) also need to be noticed as they are relevant in the context of the principle that "free and fair elections" lies at the core of democracy: (SCC p.87) "198. This Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati (Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala 1973 (4) SCC 225) held by majority that the power of amendment of the Constitution contained in Article 368 does not permit altering the basic structure of the Constitution. All the seven Judges who constituted the majority were also agreed that democratic set-up was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Democracy postulates that there should be periodical elections, so that people may be in a position either to re-elect the old representatives or, if they so choose, to change the representatives and elect in their place other representatives. Democracy further contemplates that the elections should be free and fair, so that the voters may be in a position to vote for candidates of their choice. Democracy can indeed function only upon the faith that elections are free and fair and not rigged and manipulated, that they are effective instruments of ascertaining popular will both in reality and form and are not mere rituals calculated to generate illusion of defence to mass opinion. Free and fair elections require that the candidates and their agents should not resort to unfair means or malpractices as may impinge upon the process of free and fair elections." (emphasis supplied)"