Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Prima facie, no matter deemed to be beyond jurisdiction of superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court."

7.1 The power of judicial review under Article 226 is concomitant of the basic structure of Constitution. This court is supported in its view by various decisions of the Apex Court including the case of Election Commission of India Thr. Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. 2000 (8) SCC 216.

12.4 In the earlier part of this judgment this Court found with the aid of Ashok Kumar's case of Apex Court, that Art. 329 / Art. 243-O(b) does not close all doors on a litigant seeking recourse to judicial review under Art. 226 to assail an election.

12.5 Art. 226, by its very nature and the object it seeks to achieve is wide enough to include within its sweep all contingencies abhorrent to law, good conscience, fair play, reasonableness, natural justice, basic human rights and to all those concepts which constitute the basic structure in our Constitution.

12.12 The answer to all the aforesaid questions lies in Article 226 which uses the expression ".......and for any other purpose." This expression reveals the plenary nature of power. The Constitution makers consciously used this expression so as to prevent any illegality to escape the scrutiny of the High Court notwithstanding any constitutional [ Art. 243-O(b)] or statutory (election petition) bar from coming in way of exercise of power of judicial review. However the High Court ought to be circumspect while exercising this power when statutory remedy is available. This does not mean that the High Court should close the doors of justice to the litigant. The High Court is only required to be cautious and careful while considering the issue raised and not balk away. If the circumstances disclose apparent illegality to have polluted the election process turning it to be an eyewash it would be prudent to exercise the power of judicial review in larger public interest by ignoring the unavailed statutory remedy of election petition. 12.13 This kind of an approach in larger public interest while dealing with elections, is necessary in the fast degrading moral standards where contesting elections at any level of governance is being treated by more and more as a business venture rather than selfless public service. To catch up with the changing times the exceptions to the power of judicial review need to be proportionately liberalized so that unscrupulous elements do not take shelter behind and thrive due to the meandering and time consuming judicial process. 12.14 Thus relegating the appellant to the remedy of election petition would not have been justified in the given facts and circumstances. Moreso, dismissal of the petition and asking the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing of election petition would have led to a scenario where an election infested with violence, rioting and hooliganism would have prevailed thereby eroding the very foundation of the democratic setup recognized by the Constitution. 12.15 Every office filled by election is required to be preceded by democratic process of free and fair election. If the election process itself is polluted by violence, rioting and hooliganism then the election is a mere farce. The concept of democratic republic is recognized by the Constitution as part of basic structure which is required to be zealously protected and preserved to ensure prevalence of rule of law. Any nefarious attempt making inroads into the pristine nature of democratic republic deserves to be nipped in the bud for which the most suitable and efficacious remedy is the power of judicial review. As such, this court unhesitatingly holds that the learned Single Judge has rightly invoked its writ jurisdiction to prevent democracy from turning into mobocracy.