Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A bare perusal of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clearly that the Hon'ble Apex Court very specifically held that the High Court did not lack jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to issue appropriate directions (it was matter of election of legislative assembly) but observed that the High Court should not pass any order interim or otherwise which has tendency or effect of postponing of election which is reasonably imminent and, therefore, held that when the process is imminent the greater reluctance be of the High Court to do anything or direct anything to be done which will postpone that process indefinitely. The above has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a matter of election of the legislative assembly and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Government of State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution by such type of order postponing process indefinitely or which may result into creating a situation of like nature.

10. It is clear from the above that in a matter of relief sought against the election, when there is a procedure prescribed under the Act hen no other procedure is available an, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), the law does not contemplate two attacks of matters connected with election, under Article 226 of the Constitution during the process of election and other then it is completed by election petition under the Representation of People Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in addition to above, further held, that where a liability is created by a statute which gives special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that one must be availed of. Therefore, it is further clear that if a right is created by statute and remedy is available in the statute then that remedy alone is to be be followed and availed of, whereas here in the present case, this is a matter with respect to the right of a member of society, registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958) and governed by its own constitution which provides how the society will be having its general body, members, its working, controlling and election. There is no contention of any of the parties that any alternative remedy is available for challenging the election in the Constitution of the society. Therefore, it is clear that the right has not been created by statute and there appeals to be no remedy provided under the state in the matter election of the society of respondent No. 3, it is also clear that neither the above society is discharging any constitutional functions nor its functions can be equated with functions of any of the constitutional authority, rather it can be said that the society is not even discharging any statutory functions. It is also clear from the Constitution of the society that the members of the society are accepted as per the constitution of the society and the management of the society lies with the management committee of the society which are to be elected by the general body of the society. Therefore, it appears that all powers vest in the general body of the society. The objects for which the society was constituted, is also given in Clause (3) of the Constitution of Society.

11. In view of the above facts, it cannot be said that by entertaining or by granting any interim relief there will be any constitutional crises or there will be hurdle in discharging any statutory duties of the statutory authority and the election of the present society cannot be put at high pedestal with the election of the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies.

12. Now, the question arises with respect to the interference in the matter of election of non-petitioner No. 3-Society, for which the learned counsel for the petitioners, as mentioned above, submitted that this is a matter of election and this court should not interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. It appears that the process of the election has been placed at very high pedestal, because as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (supra), it takes years to build up public confidence in the functioning of constitutional institutions and it was further held that it is the duty of the courts to protect and preserve the integrity of all constitutional institutions which are devised to foster democracy. This proposition which was given in the case of the election to the members of the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies as back as in the year 1952 while considering the election matter of election of Legislative Assemblies by the Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami (supra). The courts have, as a matter of procedure, stressed it to all the elections and, therefore, there is a great reluctance in interfering with the matter of election and its process unless the process is completed. The reason behind reluctance in the interference by the Court in the matter appears to be because of the reason that the elections are placed at very high pedestal. In my view, when the elections are placed at high pedestal, the elected members are given a high status and recognition that it is also the duty of the courts to see that this high pedestal be kept as high as it must be and the elected members should be kept on high pedestal and when the process is polluted by any authority or or person to lower down the status o the elected members by polluting by polluting the process or by polluting the election itself then the courts are required to interfere to maintain the dignity and decorum of the election. Simply by saying that this is a matter of election and is required to be interfered in exceptional circumstances, does not mean that there is a complete ban against the passing of the appropriate order even when exceptional and grave reason to pass the order. When courts can protect the decorum and dignity of the election and election and elected members by passing appropriate order even then if court will not pass order to maintain decorum and dignity of the election and of elected member, it will be failing its duly causing harm to the public. At the same time it is the duty of the court to see as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, if there is chance of delay or postponement of election and election will be deferred for indefinite of long time, the court should not pass the interim order and the aggrieved party should wait the result of the election.

14. The courts of law are well guided by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the decision of this Court and also by the various other High Courts. More cautions and cares are required to be taken in the matter of elections disputes. Therefore, there are sufficient guidelines available before the courts to hands the matter of the election disputes. The court of law is established to impart justice and the court will be failing its duty in case when the illegality is brought to the notice of the court and the court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and aggrieved person will be left to suffer. No court can or should tolerate the illegality and permit any person to take benefit of illegal action. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be a complete ban on the interference in the election matter.