B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise a common complaint regarding the directives issued by the Election Commission of India in its proceedings No. 3/4/2001/js. II dated, 31-1-2001 as being arbitrary, illegal and) violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to dispense with the production of documentary evidence of identity of the voters at the time of casting the votes by the voters who do not possess such documents in the current bye-elections of Giddalur-123 and Badvel-155 Assembly Constituencies scheduled on 19-2-2001.

( 2 ) MR. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contends that these directives are without any jurisdiction as being ultra vires of the Representation people Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) and the Rules under the caption the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules ). The learned senior Counsel has adverted our attention to Section 62 of the Act to stress his point that every person whose name is enlisted in the Voters List is entitled as of right to exercise his franchise and such a right is unfettered and cannot be scuttled by any act of the Election Commission or otherwise and that such an attempt would violate the constitutional right of the voter to exercise his franchise which is the essence of the democracy by which this nation is governed. He makes us to survey the provisions of the Act as also the Rules and submits that there is absolutely no power to the Election Commission to issue a sort of guidelines as assailed in these writ petitions. Learned Counsel submits that taking of steps to avoid impersonation of voters is a welcome measure and that Rule 35 which has been framed to achieve the said objective serves the purpose and the impugned directives run contra to the said rules and are unsustainable. He cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in A. C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillar in support of his proposition that the Election Commission cannot transgress its limits stated in Article 324 of indian Constitution, the Act and the Rules made thereunder and adverts our attention to what is stated by the Supreme Court in paragraph-25 of the judgment which reads:" (A) when there is no Parliamentary legislation of rule made under the said legislation, the Commission is free to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections, (b) where there is an Act and express rules made thereunder, it is not open to the Commission to override the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words, the powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than to supplant the law (both statute and rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Art. 324. (c) where the Act or the rules are silent, the Commission has no doubt plenary powers under art. 324 to give any direction in respect of the conduct, of election, and (d) where a particular direction by the commission is submitted to the government for approval as required by the Rules, it is not open to the Commission to go ahead with implementation of it at its own sweet will even if the approval of the Government is not given. "

( 3 ) COUNTERING the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, mr. C. P. Sarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submits that the directives issued are not in conflict with the objectives to be achieved in the shape of issuing of Electronic Photo identity Cards (for short epic Cards ), but cent percent issuance of such identity cards could not be achieved for various reasons beyond the control of the officials of the election Commission as some voters have died and some voters have migrated and by way of abundant caution and to ensure that such persons who have missed the EPIC cards would exercise their franchise and for proper identification of such persons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document