Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the very reading of Sec.146(2) of the R.P. Act would clearly reveal that the Election Commission has got powers to call a person to furnish information on such points or matters which, in the opinion of the Election Commission, might be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the enquiry; that in view of the powers vested on the Election Commission under Sec.146(2), the Chief Secretary to the State of Tamilnadu was required to furnish certain things; that accordingly, he has furnished; that whether they are on such points or matters and whether they are useful for or relevant to the subject matter of enquiry has not yet been decided; that under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot prevent the Election Commission from looking into those materials; that the contention of the petitioner's side that the subject matter of enquiry can only be the allegations which, according to the second respondent, constituted the grounds of disqualification; but, what is referred to by the President of India for the opinion of the Election Commission is as to whether the petitioner held any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State; that "office of profit" has got very wide dimension; that the particulars submitted by the Chief Secretary, have got some prima facie material, and they are somewhat connected to the issue; that the petitioner cannot compel the Election Commission to conduct the enquiry in a particular way; that it is the discretion of the Election Commission to follow its procedure, and it is also strictly acting in conformity with the provisions of law; that the principles of natural justice have been strictly followed; that the petitioner has never questioned the jurisdiction of the Election Commission; that the writ petition is not maintainable; that it is not a fit case where the Court could exercise its powers to grant the discretionary relief of mandamus, and hence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.

22.Placing reliance on Sec.146(2) of the R.P. Act and making emphasis on the words "shall also have the power", the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the powers vested on the Election Commission under Sec.146(2) of the R.P. Act is additional to the powers vested under Sec.146(1); that in exercise of the powers under Sec.146(2), the Election Commission can require any person subject to the privilege which might be claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such points or matters as in the opinion of the Election Commission might be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the enquiry; that accordingly, in the instant case, the Election Commission required the Chief Secretary of the Tamilnadu State to furnish information on the question of disqualification of the petitioner herein; that the information sought for by the first respondent and placed by the Chief Secretary to Tamilnadu Government, in the opinion of the first respondent, was useful and also relevant to the subject matter of enquiry; that the subject matter of enquiry was not the contents or the grounds of disqualification urged by the second respondent in his complaint dated 24.3.2006; but, the subject matter of reference placed before the Election Commission for its opinion by the Office of the President of India, was the question of disqualification of the petitioner; that under the circumstances, it would be futile on the part of the petitioner to state that the Election Commission has proceeded to enquire into the matter beyond the scope of reference placed before it, thereby making excess of the powers conferred on it, and hence, the second respondent was to give its opinion on the said subject matter.

42.The second respondent who was intimated by the Election Commission to place affidavit and also the documents in order to prove the allegations in the complaint on or before 15.5.2006, failed to do so. Then, the Election Commission addressed the first communication on 18.8.2006, and the second communication on 17.10.2006. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, the Election Commission of India is vested with additional powers under Sec.146(2) of the R.P. Act to call for the Chief Secretary of the State of Tamilnadu to furnish information in order to formulate its opinion in the matter. Under Sec.146(2), the Election Commission can require any person to furnish information on such points or matters as in the opinion of the Commission may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of enquiry. In the said communication dated 17.10.2006, the Election Commission has called for the information/documents from the Chief Secretary only as to whether Shri N.Jothi, M.P., Rajya Sabha, was appointed by the State Government as its Counsel/Counsel for the former Chief Minister as claimed in the petition filed by the second respondent before the President of India, at any point of time after 3.4.2002, and if so appointed, a copy of the appointment order along with the copies of the relevant documents. Thus, in order to formulate an opinion on the subject matter of the enquiry, the Election Commission called the Chief Secretary of the State to furnish the information on such points and matters mentioned in that letter since, in the opinion of the Election Commission, they might be useful for or relevant to take a decision.

43.The subject matter before the Election Commission can only be the subject matter which was referred to by the President of India calling for the opinion of the Election Commission. The subject matter which was referred to at the time when it was placed before the Election Commission, was only the complaint of the second respondent dated 24.3.2006. The complaint of the second respondent dated 24.3.2006, contained specific allegations in respect of the disqualification on two grounds mentioned therein, and hence, the subject matter of enquiry that was in the hands of the Election Commission, was only to enquire into the question of disqualification on the grounds alleged in the complaint and nothing more. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under Sec.146(2) of the R.P. Act, the Election Commission has called for the necessary particulars/documents by making a query with regard to that allegation by a communication dated 17.10.2006, as stated supra. Having received the reply from the Chief Secretary containing particulars which were neither called for, but extraneous, the Election Commission cannot be permitted to say that they were incidental to the subject matter in question. Those facts placed by the Chief Secretary in his communication dated 20.10.2006, were not only outside the grounds of disqualification complained of by the second respondent, but also the query that was made by the Election Commission on 17.10.2006. The information placed by the Chief Secretary to the State of Tamilnadu cannot be termed either as incidental or connected to the allegations made by the second respondent in his complaint, which according to him, would constitute disqualification of the petitioner from being a Member of Parliament. It is pertinent to point out that those information were never called for by the Election Commission. The information placed by the Chief Secretary to the State of Tamilnadu, were never intended to be placed or never called for. Hence, those information placed by the Chief Secretary, were undoubtedly extraneous to the matter under reference. It remains to be stated that the allegation found in the complaint of the second respondent and the inputs provided by the State Government are different. Accepting such a contention put forth by the respondents' side and allowing the first respondent to do such a full-fledged enquiry, as could be seen from the communication covering the inputs placed by the Chief Secretary to the State of Tamilnadu, would be nothing but allowing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry on the matters which are extraneous to the allegations which, according to the second respondent, would constitute the grounds of disqualification. Undoubtedly, the first respondent is neither vested with nor possesses powers to conduct an enquiry on extraneous matters.