Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:

A. Petitioners are elected members of the Dharwad Zilla Parishad (for short "the Parishad") of which respondent No.1 is also a member. A no-confidence motion was moved against respondent No.1 by 11 members of the Parishad before the vice-president on 24.01.2019, who forwarded the same to the CEO of the Parishad, who fixed the date of the special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion on 05.02.2019. On 24.01.2019, Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa, Hon'ble Chief Minister and also the State President of the Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) is said to have issued an authorisation in favour of Mr. Eranna Jadi, respondent No.2 herein authorising him to take appropriate decision in the matter and issue a whip to all the party members including the petitioners herein. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 is said to have issued a whip to the members of the BJP including the petitioners directing them to vote in the proposed meeting to be held on 05.02.2019 and cast their vote against the motion of no-confidence and in favour of respondent No.1.

4. I have heard Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri. Sajjan Poovayya, learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

7

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:

A. According to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, the petitioners, who are members of the political party (BJP) can be held to be disqualified only if they vote contrary to any directions issued by the BJP or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf without obtaining prior permission of the BJP, such person or authority. In this context, it is submitted that though BJP is a political party within the meaning of Section 2(vi) of the Act, Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa was not the political party i.e., BJP, which was authorised and empowered to issue any directions to respondent No.2 to issue the whip against the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that so long as Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa, despite being the party president of BJP, was not empowered or authorised by the BJP to issue any direction to respondent No.2 to issue a whip to the petitioners, the alleged authorisation letter dated 24.01.2019, said to have been issued by him to respondent No.2 as neither valid nor sufficient for respondent No.2 to issue a whip to petitioners on the ground that they are disqualified under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.
B. Though the petitioners have taken up a specific contention that Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa could not be construed or treated as the political party BJP and was not competent or entitled to issue any direction to respondent No.2 to issue a whip to the petitioners for the purposes of Section 3(b) of the Act, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not placed any material establishing as to how Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa was competent or empowered to issue the letter dated 24.01.2019 to respondent No.2. In this context, learned Senior counsel invites my attention to the constitution of BJP, in order to contend that the power or competency for the State party president, Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa to issue the letter dated 24.01.2019 to respondent No.2 is not found any where in the constitution. Article XVII of the said constitution dealing with the State Executive deals with appointment of a president while Article XXI deals with the term of a president. In the said constitution, the functions of the president, Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa are also described which do not empower or entitle him to issue the aforesaid direction dated 24.01.2019. It is therefore contended that in the absence of any provision in the constitution of the BJP as well as the provisions of the Act, which empower the president of a political party to act on behalf of the party for the purpose of Section 3(b) of the Act, the alleged letter dated 24.01.2019 issued by Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa was neither legal nor valid and in contravention of the provisions of the Act and consequently the said letter was not sufficient to enable or empower respondent No.2 to issue the alleged whip to the petitioners. C. Thirdly, it is contended that a perusal of the whip issued by respondent No.2 will indicate that the same does not conform to the terms of the delegation/authorisation issued by Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa in his favour; it is contended that the whip issued by respondent No.2 as well as the authorisation issued by Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa in his favour will clearly indicate that the same is not in conformity and in deviation of the authorisation and consequently, the whip issued by respondent No.2 is vitiated on this ground also. D. Learned Senior counsel contends that the power to delegate/authorise to issue the whip should flow from the constitution of the political party i.e., the BJP. In this context, it is contended that a perusal of the constitution of the BJP will indicate that for the purpose of delegation/authorisation, the State Party President, Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa, was not the political party and it was the State Executive Committee of the BJP which was the political party for the purpose of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. It is therefore contended that the authorisation issued by Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa is no authorisation in the eye of law and consequently, the whip issued by respondent No.2 is vitiated on this ground also.

10. Point No.1 framed by the Commission deals with the various contentions urged on behalf of the legality and validity of the whip issued by respondent No.2 including the competency of Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa to issue necessary directions to respondent No.2 to issue the whip as well as the competency of respondent No.2 to issue the whip to the petitioners. While considering the said contentions, the Election Commission has taken into account the oral and documentary evidence on record with regard to the directions issued by Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa, as well as the whip issued by respondent No.2. The Commission has also considered the provisions of the Act, in particular, Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The Commission has also taken into account the constitution of the BJP including the wide and vast powers of the State President of BJP, Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa to take disciplinary action and issue necessary directions to its members including the petitioners. So also, the oral and documentary evidence on record with regard to the directions and the whip have also been considered and appreciated by the Election Commission before rendering its finding on issue No.1. The Commission has also examined the provisions of the Act, especially the definition of 'political party' within the meaning of Section 2(vi) of the Act R/w Section 3(1)(b) of the act, which contemplates that the direction can be issued to the members of a political party either by the political party to which he belongs or by any person authorised by the political party or by any authority authorised by the political party. While dealing with this issue, the Commission has come to the correct conclusion that Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa being the State President of the BJP was empowered and authorised by the BJP to issue necessary directions to respondent No.2. Pursuant to Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa issuing the said directions to respondent No.2 authorising and empowering him to issue the whip to the petitioners, respondent No.2 was a person authorised by the BJP through its party president to issue the whip/direction to the petitioners who violated the same and incurred disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The Commission has also considered the decisions relied upon by the petitioners herein and has come to the correct conclusion that the same do not apply to the facts of the instant case. As correctly held by the Commission, this is not a case of lack or absence of authority or authorisation, but a case where the petitioners had contended that the authority or authorisation was illegal and invalid which they had failed to establish before the Commission. It is therefore seen that the Commission has correctly and property considered and appreciated the material on record in its proper perspective and has come to the correct conclusion that point No.1 formulated above, is to be answered in the negative against the petitioners herein, holding that the authorisation and the whip issued to the petitioners is correct and proper. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the reasoning and the findings recorded by the Commission on issue No.1 cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record warranting interference by this Court.