SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 2286

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S.P. Bharucha & K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Bhim Singh, Presidentjammu & Kashmir Pantheres Party - Petitioner
Versus
The Election Commissioner Of India & Anr. - Respondent
WP(C) 2277/1996
Decided On : 04-04-1996

Headnote:

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 30 – Public service Commission – Illegal and arbitrary - Writ petition is filed by one who is President of a political party recognized by Election Commission namely Jammu & Kashmir Panthers Party - Writ petition contends that the provisions on section 30 confer unbridled, unguided and uncontrolled power upon the Election Commission to hold polls upon any subsequent to date of withdrawal of nominations and fixes no terminal date in this behalf - It is also the case in the writ petition that prospective candidates in the State of Jammu & Kashmir would have to obtain personal security from the State for a period of one month and this would be both difficult and expensive – Held, "Pursuant to the Supreme Courts Order Writ Petition Election Commission of India & Others officials of Union Government and Election Commission met and thoroughly discussed the issue - There was agreement that polls in various constituencies of J&K should be held announced by as already announced by the Election Commission of India - There was also agreement that it would have period to around the minimum prescribed period in such of constituencies - Possibilities on reducing the period were explored and reviewed. In view of the fact that notifications under Section 14 and 30 of Representation of People Act, 1951 have already been issued, it was felt that under the provisions of the Act it is not possible at the present stage to change dates for filing of nominations scrutiny of nominations and withdrawal of candidatures. Therefore, it was agreed that we should continue with the present schedule announced vide Election Commission of Press Note – Court are not a little surprised that the Union of India, after its statements in the counter affidavit and the submissions on its behalf at the Bar yesterday, should have agreed as it has done - Court must assume that overnight, according to the perception of the Union of India, the security position in State of Jammu & Kashmir has vastly improved and that the apprehensions that the Union of India had yesterday have been allayed - Court must act upon the basis that the Union of India and the Election Commission are fully conscious of ached accordingly, Knowing full well where the blame for serious adverse consequences, if there should be any, will lie - Having due regard to the ground realities, we must emphasis that functionaries in any manner concerned with directing the conduct supervision and control of free, fair and peaceful elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies on the States need to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach to ensure that the country shall be governed in its true, special, socialist democratic perspective – petition disposed of

JUDGMENT :

K. Ramaswamy, J.

1. This is a writ petition for a declaration that Section 30 (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India "as it does not specify the maximum period for holding the election after the withdrawal of nomination.....", and for a direction to the Election Commission of India to issue a separate notification under Section 30(d) read with Section 153 of the Act for holding elections in the State of Jammu & Kashmir within 20 days from the date for withdrawal of nominations. The writ petition is filed by one Bhmi Singh, who is the President of a political party recognised by the Election Commission, namely, the Jammu & Kashmir Panthers Party. The writ petition contends that the provisions on section 30(d) confer unbridled, unguided and uncontrolled power upon the Election Commission to hold polls upon any subsequent to the date of withdrawal of nominations and fixes no terminal date in this behalf. It is also the case in the writ petition that prospective candidates in the State of Jammu & Kashmir would have to obtain personal security from the State for a period of one month and 24 days and this would be both difficult and expensive.

2. Having regard to the obvious urgency, notice was issued on 2nd April, 1996, to the Union of India and the Election Commission to file counter affidavits and the writ petition was posted for hearing on 3rd April, 1996.

3. On 3rd April, 1996 the Election Commission did not file a counter affidavit but relied upon material on record.

4. The Union of India filed a counter affidavit affirmed by the joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It states that "the Union of India shares the sentiments and the concern expressed by the petitioner". It states that, contrary to past practice and to the period of 20 to 25 days provided for constituencies outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir in the forthcoming Parliamentary elections, the period for canvassing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir is, according to the schedule laid down by the Election Commission, 25 days. The affidavit states that "owing to the prevailing peculiar situation in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, it is no desirable that the time for canvassing in the State should be more than the necessary minimum statutory period, inter-alia, for the following reasons:-

(a) the candidates would require to obtain personal security from the State for comparatively a longer period of 25 days for the polling on 30.5.96 and 48 days for the polling on 23.5.96. This is in contrast with the rest of the country where the period ranges from 21 days to 31 days.

(b) It costs a great deal to the State in terms of resources and effort to provide security for such a long period to the candidates, their family members, their election agents, their political workers etc. In this context it would be relevant to state there that there is a threat from various militant outfits from outside the country to including attempts at liquidate the candidates.

(c)..............................."

5. The aforementioned affidavit annexes copies of correspondence between the Union of India and the Election Commission. By letter dated 25th March, 1996, the Union of India stated :

    "4. As regards the announcement of Parliamentary Elections in Jammu & Kashmir States, Commission's attention is drawn to various queries raised by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Law Ministry, as contained in the enclosed note (Annexure,-I). The Law Ministry have now advised us that it is permissible to issue different Notifications with different dates for polls under Section further confirmed that the Election Commission itself has followed such practice in the past in the context of the third General Elections and also for Elections to the Tenth Lok Sabha. As stated in the MHA Note, allowing a long gan between the date of filing nominations and the date for the poll is bound to create grave security thre

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top