M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of both the writ petitions as they raise common questions of law and fact.

( 2 ) THE brief facts can be taken from WP No. 18419 of 1999 in order to dispose of the questions raised in these writ petitions.

( 3 ) THE petitioner impugned the ban sought to be enforced by the respondent No. 4 specifically and other respondents indirectly in view of the Election Commission s proceedings dated 20-8-1999, restraining the political parties, any person of his own or on behalf of any association, society, media or political party to campaign for candidates or any one else on electronic media, relating to election matters, in conformity with the model code of conduct and policy decision taken in 1998, in consultation with political parties and media persons. The ban has resulted in frustration of contracts entered into with the Congress Party, Telugu Desam Party and other political parties, societies, persons, television companies, radios and cinemas and with other electronic media of publishing, advertising, etc. , in the electronic media. Policy decision of the Election Commission prohibiting from campaigning or advertising the political ideology or programmes, including election publicity is ultra vires of the Constitution and fundamental principles of democracy.

( 4 ) IT is contended, in the present day, electronic media is the only mode to reach the public, especially illiterate electorate, which constitutes the majority of the Electoral College, who cannot read and write. Electronic media is the only medium to propagate political programmes, ideologies, campaign, or educate voters about their rights to vote, make a choice for whom to vote, disseminate the pit-falls of the Government, high-light the attainments of the Governments, etc. It is the most efficacious medium for informing the voters the policies, developmental works and shortfalls of the Government in the shortest period. The restriction is impugned as (i) unconstitutional, arbitrary, and capricious; (ii) discriminatory as there is no such ban on the other media, like newspapers, pamphlets, public speeches, etc. It is submitted that there is neither an order of the Election Commission prohibiting advertisement or imposition of any other ban of any nature, especially on the private electronic media, nor there is any specific media policy as such which provides for such a prohibition. The decision of prohibiting publicity through private electronic media is without any authority. Respondents cannot impose such a prohibition, which runs contrary to the statutory provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Election Commission cannot provide the policy or impose restrictions under the garb and cloak of superintendence relating to the area covered by the statutory provisions. The policy decision was sought to be restricted only to publicise and disseminate the opinion poll.

( 5 ) FURTHER challenge to the imposition of restriction being contrary to the very basic concept of democracy and free and fair election and the right of freedom of the candidate or the voter or the sympathies to canvass for a person. The prohibition violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, being unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech, apart from being arbitrary and discriminatory. The Election Commission has prescribed time to the recognised parties to broadcast and telecast on National television and radio, while declining the same privilege or right for the private electronic media. Prohibition on the private electronic media for publicising, campaigning or carrying out the propaganda or advertising while permitting it in case of press and other media amounts to invidious discrimination.

( 6 ) THE respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner. They claimed to have exercised the power under Article 324 of the Constitution, which provides for superintendence, direct control on elections and to conduct the elections in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document