Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In the matter of A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , the question for consideration was whether the High Court should interfere in election matter on the allegations of irregularities in electoral rolls and whether there is a presumption in favour of the constitutional institutions and functionaries that they act bona fide in lawful discharge of functions. The majority of the Constitution Bench observed that the presumption is always of the existence of bona fides in the discharge of Constitutional and statutory functions by the constitutional institutions and functionaries such as Election Commission, Chief Electoral Officer or Electoral Registration Officers and until that presumption is displaced, it would not be just and proper to act on preconceived notions and to prevent public authorities from discharging functions which are clothed upon them. Baharul Islam, J. (as he then was) in this minority judgment observed that the Court was not satisfied that all the Electoral Officers concerned and all the staff working under them were beyond reproach in their conduct in implementing the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the other statutes/rules relating to the elections. In my opinion the majority judgment certainly would bind me but the minority judgment, in fact, was projecting the prophetic words. These days the elections are a quest for E1-dorado. Everybody wants to contest and occupy a seat. The assurances given in the election campaign would materialise or not would be altogether a different thing but the assurances are to be floated. The manner in which the nominations are rejected, the names of the voters are changed from one electoral roll to another electoral roll and for the reasons best known to the Election/Returning Officers, the objections are upheld and rejected, the recount is allowed or refused and so on would certainly give strength to the minority feeling that there is no presumption in favour of all Officers.