Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Based on the above submissions, in my considered opinion the following points would arise for determination;

(i) Whether a voter at election can be permitted to address arguments on merits of the matter and or their presence be restricted only to support the case of the candidates, who are parties to these proceedings?

(ii) Whether there is any embargo on this Court to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in all election matters or could this Court exercise powers in certain situation, if so what?

23. Answer to Point No.2: Whether there is any embargo on this Court to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in all election matters or could this Court exercise powers in certain situations, if so what? 23.1. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel has relied on the decision in Harnek Singh's case more particularly paragraph No.16 thereof to contend that, despite the existence of Article 243-O, a constitutional Court would have the power to interfere in electoral matters. He has also relied on the AIADMK's case to contend that the election commission or the electoral Officer as a duty to direct re- polling at any wards or constituency, if they were to come to conclusion that there is no free and fair election, which decision would be subject to the judicial review of the High Court and the High Court, if it were to come to the conclusion that free and fair election has not been held and or that there is a mockery of democracy and or the Election Commission has failed to protect the democracy, even after the election process is over and even though an alternative remedy may be available, by exercising the power of judicial review this court could set right any mistakes committed.

23.6. The Apex Court has also provided for the exercise of jurisdiction, where such exercise would result in subserving the progress of the election and facilitating its completion. Thus, from the above, it is clear that, the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should preferably not be exercised from the date of notification till the results are announced.

23.7. Thus, there is no embargo for the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in all election matters as sought to be contended by the learned Advocate General for the State and Sri. Vikram Huilgol for the successful candidates. 23.8. The other contention of the learned Advocate General is that, there is an alternative remedy of election petition in terms of Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules. It is a different matter to say that there is an alternative remedy and it is completely different to say that there is an embargo on this Court to exercise the jurisdiction. Whenever there is an alternative remedy, this Court can, despite the existence of such an alternative remedy, exercise the jurisdiction, if this Court were to come to a conclusion on the facts and conspectus of the case that intervention of this Court is required.

23.9. As held by the Apex Court in Fauzia Imtiyaz Shaik's case and AIDMK's case, the same is left to the sound discretion of the Court exercising powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

23.10. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that, there is no embargo as such on this Court to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in all election matters, however a judicial hands-off policy is applicable from the date of issuance of the notification of the election to the completion of the election. There is no hands-off policy which would be applicable prior to the notification or subsequent to the announcement of the results. In all such cases, it is left to the sound discretion of the judge concerned to decide whether he ought to exercise the powers of judicial review or not.