Embedded Files
Writ | Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy
Writ | Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy
Election petition - Writ -Maintainability of - Section 10A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and Section 9A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 read with Articles 243-K and 243-O, are pari materia with Article 324 of the Constitution of India - Remedy of an aggrieved person accepting or rejecting nomination of a candidate is by way of an election petition in view of the bar created under Section 15A of the 1959 Act - The said Act is a complete code providing machinery for redressal to the grievances pertaining to election - High Court though exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but such jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available and more so exercise restraint in terms of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India - Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy - It is a prudent discretion to be exercised by the High Court not to interfere in the election matters, especially after declaration of the results of the elections but relegate the parties to the remedy contemplated by the statute – Constitution of India, Article 226. #2020 SCeJ 105
Under the election law, the rejection of a nomination paper can be used as a ground to call election in question before the Authority prescribed by law in terms of Article 329 of the Constitution of India but not during the intermediate period
Under the election law, the rejection of a nomination paper can be used as a ground to call election in question before the Authority prescribed by law in terms of Article 329 of the Constitution of India but not during the intermediate period
Only remedy provided was by election petition to be presented after the election was over and even the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the intermediate period. It was held that the ground of rejection of nomination paper cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other court. It further held that under the election law, the rejection of a nomination paper can be used as a ground to call election in question before the Authority prescribed by law in terms of Article 329 of the Constitution of India. N. P. Punnuswami v. The Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64
"(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the' 'election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress."
Remedy for every wrong done during the election is postponed to the post-election stage
Remedy for every wrong done during the election is postponed to the post-election stage
Article 329 of the Constitution of India starts with a non obstante clause that notwithstanding contained in this Constitution, no election to either house shall be called in question except by an election petition. Therefore, Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election, except in special situations pointed out but left unexplored in Ponnuswami. It was held that there is a remedy for every wrong done during the election in progress although it is postponed to the post-election stage. The Election Tribunal has powers to give relief to an aggrieved candidate. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405
Law of election in this country does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings.
Law of election in this country does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings.
Malam Singh vs. The Collector, Sehore, AIR 1971 MP 195
"In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of ......... the Representation of the People Act, which as I shall point out later, seems to lie that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. It seems to me that under the election law, the only significance, Which the rejection of a nomination paper has, consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question."
No constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of elections to Local Bodies such as, Municipalities, Panchayats and the like
No constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of elections to Local Bodies such as, Municipalities, Panchayats and the like
No constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of elections to Local Bodies such as, Municipalities, Panchayats and the like. However, as it is desirable to resolve election disputes speedily through the machinery of election petitions, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should always decline to invoke its writ jurisdiction in an election dispute, if the alternative remedy of an election petition is available. Malam Singh vs. The Collector, Sehore, AIR 1971 MP 195 , Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425
"...... though no legislature can impose limitations on these constitutional owners it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of case."
Dispute relating to an election of a local body before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dispute relating to an election of a local body before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Harnek Singh vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 383
"15. Prayers (b) and (c) aforementioned, evidently, could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the High Court exercises a plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such jurisdiction being discretionary in nature may not be exercised inter alia keeping in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available therefor. (See Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242: 005 (7) SCALE 290.)
16. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India mandates that all election disputes must be determined only by way of an election petition. This by itself may not per se bar judicial review which is the basic structure of the Constitution, but ordinarily such jurisdiction would not be exercised. There may be some cases where a writ petition would be entertained but in this case we are not concerned with the said question.
17. In C. Subrahmanyam vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 703, a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that a writ petition should not be entertained when the main question which fell for decision before the High Court was non-compliance of the provisions of the Act which was one of the grounds for an election petition in terms Rule 12 framed under the Act."
Report abuse