Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.97 seconds)Election Commission Of India Through ... vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 30 August, 2000
13. The main issue here is whether the impugned order can be sustained in law at all and whether this court in judicial review under Article 226, ought not to set it aside? Mr. V.P.Singh and other learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners stated and submitted that respondent No. 1 (i.e. Shri Adish C. Aggarwala) had passed the impugned order despite the fact that he, himself, was a candidate in this election that he was aggrieved by the fact that his name had been removed from the membership of the Bar Council of Delhi. As a consequence of these events and circumstances, it could not be said that he would be impartial or was not interested in the matter. Therefore, he ought not to have been a judge in his own case. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa. Another argument is that Mr. Aggarwala did not have the competence to pass the impugned order at all. Mr. V.P. Singh further submitted that courts have been very cautious and circumspect in interfering with the electoral process once it is set in motion. He pointedly referred to paragraph 25 of the Supreme Court decision in Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors (supra) which reads as under:
A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman & Ors vs Union Of India on 30 March, 1982
20. There is yet another matter which needs to be disposed of before I part with this case. Elections are the bedrock of democracy. Whether it is the legislative elections or elections to municipal bodies or local bodies or to bodies like Bar Councils, elections are the essence of democracy. If no election is held, there can be no democracy. Holding of an election is of the essence. There are two facets to an election. First, is the holding of an election in time and the second, is the maintaining of the purity of election. As was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of A.K.M. Hasan Uzzaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors: , the Court's interference with the electoral process was inversely related to the imminence of the date of election. The more imminent such date, the greater ought to be the reluctance to interfere. The second aspect is the purity of the election. While the purity of the electoral process can be tested and is, indeed, often decided not only by way of election petitions but by way of writ petitions also, the same can, however, only be tested if the elections are held. Time is unidirectional. An election not held at the scheduled time cannot later be held at that time. However, and election irregularly held can be corrected later. In this particular case, it is peremptory to hold the elections latest by 30th September, 2003 in view of the fact that extended term of the Bar Council of Delhi expires on that date. The Bar Council of India is well aware of that because, it is the Bar Council of India which extended that term. So, Elections must be held before that date otherwise the present Bar Council becomes defunct and there would be no Bar Council of Delhi after that date.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1977
Section 3 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Anugrah Narain Singh & Anr vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 10 September, 1996
He emphasised that if such circumstances and events as in the present case are permitted to go on then no election will ever take place because someone or the other will find some cause and stall the election. The importance of holding elections at regular intervals as indicated by the Supreme Court cannot be over-emphasised. Thereafter, Mr. V.P. Singh referred to paragraph 32 of the said judgment which is as under:
1