Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The scheme is this. The President of India (Under Section

14) ignites the general elections across the nation by calling upon the People, divided into several constituencies and registered in the electoral rolls, to choose their representatives to the Lok Sabha. The constitutionally appointed authority, the Election Commission, takes over the whole conduct and supervision of the mammoth enterprise in- volving a plethora of details and variety of activities, and starts off with the notification of the time table for the, several stages of the election (Section 30). The assembly line operations then begin. An administrative machinery and technology to execute these enormous and diverse jobs is fabricated by the Act, creating officers, powers and duties, delegation of functions and location of polling stations. The precise exercise following upon the calendar for the poll, commencing from presentation of nomination papers, polling drill and telling of votes,, culminating in the declaration and report of results are covered by specific prescriptions in the Act and the rules. The secrecy of the ballot, the authenticity of the voting paper and its later identifiability with reference to particular polling stations, have been thoughtfully provided for. Myriad other matters necessary for smooth elections have been taken care of by several provisions of the Act.

'The election philosophy and the principle in Ponnuswami Democracy is government by the people. It is a 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 elections periodically held, based on adult franchise, although social and economic democracy may demand much more. Ponnuswami is a landmark case in election laws and deals with the scope, amplitude, rationale and limitations of Art. 329(b). its ratio has been consistently followed by this Court in several rulings through Durga Shankar Mehta (1) and Hari Vishnu Kamath and Khare (2) down to Indira Gandhi(3). The factual setting in that case may throw some light on the decision itself. The appellant's nomination for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly was rejected by the Returning Officer and so he hurried to the High Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of rejection, without waiting for the entire elective process to run its full course and, at the end of it, when the results also were declared, to move the election tribunal for setting aside the result of the election conducted without his participation. He thought that if the election proceeded without him irreparable damage, would have been caused and therefore sought to intercept the progress of the election by filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed it as unsustainable, thanks to Art. 329(b) and this court in appeal, affirmed that holding. Fazal Ali, J. virtually spoke for the Court and explained the principle underlying Art. 329(b). The ambit and spirit of the bar imposed by the Article was elucidated with reference to the principle that 'it does not require much argument to show that in a country with a democratic constitution in which the legislatures have to play a very important role, it will lead to serious consequences if the elections are unduly protracted or obstructed.' In the view of the, learned Judge, immediate individual relief at an intermediate stage when the process of election is under way has to be sacrificed for the paramount public good of promoting the completion of elections. Fazal Ali, J. ratiocinated on the ineptness of. interlocutory legal bold-ups. He posed the issue and answered it thus :

"The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of-the Constitution (the ordinary (1) [1955] 1 S. C. R. 267 (2) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1104.

(3) [1976] 2 S.C.R. 347.

6-1114SCI/77 jurisdiction of the courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, which, as I shall point out later, seems to. be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an 'intermediate stage before any court. It seems to me that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to Call the election in question. Article 329(b) was apparently enacted to describe the manner in which end the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. I think it follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(b) and in setting up a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-

tion was part of election a dispute as to the validity of the nomination was a dispute relating to election and could be called in question, only after the whole election was over, before the election tribunal. This meant that the Returning Officer could have no jurisdiction to decide the validity of a nomination, although section 36 of the Act conferred on him that jurisdiction. The learned Judge dismissed this argument as without merit, despite the great dailectical ingenuity in the submission. In this connection the learned Judge observed "Under section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is the duty of the Returning Officer to scrutinize the nomination papers to ensure that they comply with the requirements of, the Act and decide all objections which be made to any nomination. It is clear that unless this duty is discharged properly, any number of candidates may stand for election without complying with the provisions of the Act and a great deal of confusion may ensue. In discharging the statutory duty imposed on him, the Returning Officer does not call in question any election. Scrutiny of nomination papers is only a stage, though an important stage, in the election process. It is one of the essential duties to be performed before the election can be completed, and anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in treating a single step taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election. The decision of this appeal however turns not on the construction of the single word "election", but on the construction of the compendious expression-no election shall be called in question" in this context and setting with due regard to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Evidently, the argument has no, bearing on this method of approach to the question posed in this appeal, which appears to me the only correct method." What emerges from this perspicacious reasoning, if we may say so with great respect, is that any decision sought and rendered will not amount to 'calling in question' an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. 'Ale should not slur over the quite essential observation "-Anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election. Likewise, it is fallacious to treat 'a single step taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election'.