Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

issued for the purposes of election for any post in Panchayat whether for 'Member' or for 'President' or 'Vice-President' is filed before the actual commencement of election process, by issuance of the Calendar of Events or fixing the date for filing nominations, holding of meetings for election, etc., can be so interfered is a wrong contention on the face of it.

22. The writ petitions on merits cannot obviously be decided in a matter of few days after having the stand of the Respondent - State in such cases and if commencement of election process itself was to be withheld or stayed to serve the effective purpose of such juridical scrutiny, that would be nothing but interference with the election process itself which is excluded by the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India quoted above.

appears to have not been followed by the State Government, but that is not sufficient and strong enough a reason to upset the entire election process for the post of 'President' and 'Vice-President' of all the Zilla Panchayats and it is only for the State itself which is also equally bound by the judgments of the Court to fairly and genuinely comply with those directions in true letter and spirit.

29. One would have expected in such cases for fixing the category-wise reservations for the post of 'President'. and 'Vice-President' of Panchayats at the same time, when the elections for Members itself is initially announced, so that the objections, if any, for that could be well raised in time and considered by the competent authorities in the State Government and it would have been much better if the objections are decided by a speaking and reasoned quasi-judicial order by such competent authorities in a transparent manner before the final Notifications fixing the reservations are issued and still leaving a reasonable time for the aggrieved persons to seek judicial scrutiny of such quasi- judicial orders, deciding the objections well ahead of the commencement of the election process itself. But at the fag-end of such time period or just before Date of Order 11-01-2017 W.P.No.27635/2016 Sri Khaleel Ahmad Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

the commencement of the election process or after the commencement of the election process, no such judicial scrutiny can be undertaken and in the considered opinion of this Court, the bar under Article 243-0 would get attracted in such cases.

30. There is an imminent need of passing a quasi-judicial order complying with the principles of natural justice, deciding the objections against the reservations proposed to be made under 2005 Rules as amended from time to time much ahead of holding these elections for the post of President & Vice president of Panchayats, which orders alone can be made subject to judicial scrutiny much prior to the issuance of the final Notification, fixing seat reservations, in exercise of subordinate legislative exercise, which is beyond the judicial scrutiny by virtue of bar under Art.243-O of the Constitution of India. This exercise should be undertaken at the time of initiating the steps for holding the elections for the membership of Panchayats themselves. The true democratic process with transparency is the tenet of free & fair elections, which is the constitutional ethos of our Republic.

33. Therefore, it is for the State Government to provide sufficient time-gap between notifying the draft reservations for these posts and receiving objections, if any, and passing such quasi-judicial orders as stated above and then issue the final Notification for commencement of the election process for these posts, under the Act of 1993.

34. The decision of the objections at a point of time just near the commencement of election process for these posts also in effect renders such judicial scrutiny impractical and impossible and attracts the constitutional bar to such judicial scrutiny. The concerned Rules are therefore required to be amended to provide for such time- frame, leaving sufficient time period of, say at least six months, for such judicial scrutiny of the quasi- judicial orders deciding such objections.