All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs The State Election Commissioner on 12 January, 2007
In my considered and humble opinion, the ratio of the said decision may not be applicable to the peculiar facts situation of the present case. All the writ petitions had been filed as public interest litigations. It is of course true that five of the writ petitions were filed by the political parties whose candidates were contesting in the election. However, other petitions had been filed either by the candidates or even citizens who cherish democratic value. A free and fair election has been held to be a basic principle of democracy and democracy is considered to be a basic structure of the Constitution. The purport of the petitions was to ensure free and fair poll. The duty was upon the Election Commission and other officials to ensure such free and fair poll. Such officials were before the Court. All the writ petitions had been filed at a stage when results were yet to be announced. These public interest litigations cannot be equated with election petitions under the statutory provisions, which require that all candidates should be impleaded. At the time when the petitions were filed counting had not begun. Subsequently when counting was permitted to be undertaken, it was specifically indicated that declaration of results would be subject to the decision in the writ petitions. In fact under a specific direction of the court, in the certificates in favour of the successful candidates, it has been so indicated. Therefore, all the successful candidates knew that their election as Councillors was in peril being subject to the result of the writ petitions. Keeping in view the peculiar nature of the case and the main purpose of filing the public interest litigations which was to ensure free and fair election, it cannot be said that in the absence of the candidates or even the successful candidates, the writ petitions were hit by the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties.