Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. N.V.Anjaria, learned Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2, adopted the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Authority and further submitted that once the election process was on this High Court should not undertake any exercise which would either result in disruption or postponement of the schedule fixed.

5. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No.1, invited attention to the three decisions of the Apex Court, viz. (i) ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216; (ii) ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA vs. STATE OF HARYANA, reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 104, and (iii) DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENT, A.P. & ORS. vs. M.R. APPARAO & ANR., reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638, to point out that the parameters within which the High Court can intervene in an election process have been laid down and are well settled. The High Court, therefore, was not required to entertain the petition.

21. A third category is not far to visualise. Under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 an election petition cannot be filed before the date of election, i.e., the date on which the returned candidate is declared elected. During the process of election something may have happened which would provide a good ground for the election being set aside. Purity of election process has to be preserved. One of the means for achieving this end is to deprive a returned candidate of the success secured by him by resorting to means and methods falling foul of the law of elections. But by the time the election petition may be filed and judicial assistance secured material evidence may be lost. Before the result of the election is declared, assistance of Court may be urgently and immediately needed to preserve the evidence without in any manner inter-meddling with or thwarting the progress of election. ..."

55. A detailed analysis of the above referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in particular, the election cases, shows that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections in order to ensure that such election process is completed and concluded, right from the date of its commencement till the date of its conclusion. The Supreme Court has also stated that such orders which would enable smooth completion and furtherance of that election process is always permissible. What has been repeatedly emphasized is that there should not be an interference in the election process at the instance of any party who may approach the Court in an outwardly innocuous fashion with a view to stultify the election process, as in the opinion of the Supreme Court, that would interfere with the constitutional mandate of holding of the elections, where the will of the people is ultimately ascertained, which results in the election of the representatives of the people who fill the role of law makers and custodian of the Government.

57. Keeping in view the observations made in Ashok Kumar's case (supra), it can be said that though generally the jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked under Article 226 to interfere with any ongoing process of election and should not be invoked directly to interfere with any matter connected to election after the election process was over, it cannot be said that there is an absolute bar to invoke such extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, it cannot be said that a writ petition is not maintainable in all circumstances; rather it would be more appropriate to say that under special circumstances a writ petition would be maintainable in the matters relating to elections even before completion of the election process and after completion of the election process. What would be the exceptional circumstances in a given case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked is obviously a matter which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not possible nor desirable to lay down the circumstances in which such jurisdiction can be invoked.