Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 389
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.H.S.ANSARI, P.S.MISHRA
Y.Sivaji - Appellant
Versus
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 04-30-96
Headnote:
The court held that the Election Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Union Government's decision to export cotton during the election period. The court found that the Election Commission's decision was not based on any evidence or justification and that it violated the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the Election Commission's advice to the Government of India to procure cotton stocks through agencies at the fixed support price was uncalled for and against the interests of the farmers.
Fact of the Case:
The Election Commission rejected a proposal to export two lac bales of cotton, citing that it would enhance the hardship of cotton growers and benefit middlemen. The Union Government, after receiving representations from various state governments and the Ministry of Textiles, approached the Election Commission for clearance to export cotton. The Election Commission, without providing any reasons, rejected the proposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Election Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Union Government's decision to export cotton during the election period. The court found that the Election Commission's decision was not based on any evidence or justification and that it violated the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the Election Commission's advice to the Government of India to procure cotton stocks through agencies at the fixed support price was uncalled for and against the interests of the farmers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Union Government's decision to export cotton during the election period? 2. Whether the Election Commission's decision was based on any evidence or justification? 3. Whether the Election Commission's decision violated the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether the Election Commission's advice to the Government of India to procure cotton stocks through agencies at the fixed support price was uncalled for and against the interests of the farmers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Election Commission's power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and any law made by Parliament. 2. The Election Commission cannot interfere with the executive powers of the Government, including the power to make policy decisions, unless such interference is necessary to ensure the fairness of the elections. 3. The Election Commission's decision to reject the proposal to export cotton was not based on any evidence or justification and was therefore arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. The Election Commission's decision violated the principles of natural justice as it did not provide any reasons for its decision and did not give the Government of India an opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The court directed the Government of India to decide on the export of cotton forthwith and restrained the Election Commission from interfering with the decision. The court also declared any direction to the contrary by the Election Commission to be invalid and inoperative.
( 2 ) SINCE the matter required immediate attention, we gave notices to the respondents through their standing counsel. Learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the third respondent before us. The Union of India appeared through its Standing Counsel and the Chief Election Commissioner responded through Mr. C. P. Sarathy, learned Senior Advocate. Since Election Commission sought time, we made an interim order and postponed the final hearing and disposal of the matter to enable the Election Commission and other respondents to show cause, if any, in these words :"as nothing has been shown to us on behalf of the Election Commission as well as the Union of India, we propose to order on our prima facie satisfaction, that Election Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction and the Union Government has apparently abdicated its authority of decision making to the whim of the Election Commission. While we are inclined to accommodate the Election Commission and accordingly postpone making final disposal of the writ petition, we are sufficiently persuaded in public interest to issue direction to the Union of India to immediately attend to the cause of the cotton growers and
