Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, JJ.
Ambati Rambabu, S/o AVSR Anjaneyulu – Appellant
Versus
Election Commission of India – Respondents
Writ Petition No.12066 of 2024
Decided on : 23-05-2024
Election - Writ Petition - Article 329(b) - The court emphasized that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as per the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and not through writ petitions, reinforcing the constitutional bar against judicial interference in ongoing elections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the 2024 General Election and alleged electoral offences at several polling stations. After complaints to election authorities went unaddressed, the petitioner sought a writ to declare the actions of the election officials illegal and to conduct fresh polls.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election process was ongoing and that any disputes should be addressed through an election petition, not a writ petition, as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars court interference in election matters.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) against questioning elections in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as outlined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that the constitutional framework prohibits judicial intervention during the election process.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
ORDER :
(per Subba Reddy Satti, J)
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner has contested in the General Election-2024, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) on behalf of Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party from 98-Sattenapalli Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as ‘Constituency’). On the polling date, several electoral offences took place in polling station Nos. 236 and 237 of Narnepadu village, Muppalla Mandal; polling stations Nos.253 and 254 of Dammalapadu Village, Muppalla Mandal and polling station Nos.193 and 197 of Chimalamarri Village, Nakarikallu Mandal of 98, Sattenapalli Assembly Constituency. Petitioner made representation to the District Election Officer, on 13.05.2024. However, the authority has not initiated any action. Therefore, the petitioner made another representation dated 14.05.2024 to the Chief Election Officer.
b) Further, on 13.05.2024, at polling stations Nos.236 and 237 of Narnepadu village and polling stations Nos.253 and 254 of Dammalapadu village, election staff colluded with the personnel from Telugu Desam Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘TDP’) and committed electoral offences. The unlawful activities were recorded in the web cameras installed in the polling stations. At polling stations Nos.193 and 197, Chimalamarri Village, Nakarikallu Mandal, polling was halted in the afternoon due to unavoidable circumstances and disturbances, and polling was resumed after official polling hours. The Returning Officer is duty-bound to look into the allegations made against the polling staff as per Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023. The Returning Officer shall report the procedural errors to the Election Commission as per Section 58 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). The irregularities were committed after the stage of Form 17A scrutiny. Without considering the same, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 17.05.2024. Thus, prayed to set aside the proceedings dated 17.05.2024 and to take comprehensive inquiry and fresh polling in station Nos.236, 237, 253 and 254 of 98-Sttenapalli Assembly Constituency.
3. Heard Sri Sumanth, learned Counsel representing Sri L. Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the election staff colluded with the personnel of TDP and committed serious irregularities. He would also submit that in view of the serious allegations against the staff, calling for a report from the Officer is a futile exercise. He would also submit that the authority did not consider the complaints objectively.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 would submit that the writ petition, itself, is not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the agent of the petitioner was present at the time of scrutiny. However, nothing was stated about the alleged incidents. He also would submit
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, not through writ petitions, due to the constitutional bar under Article 329(b).
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, not through writ petitions.
Writ petitions challenging election irregularities must be addressed by election tribunals, not courts, emphasizing the constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters.
Election - writ petitions instituted seeking re-poll including a challenge to the decision of the 1st respondent -Election Commission refusing such prayer are not maintainable in view of the constitu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that election disputes falling within the domain of Chapter II of R.P. Act, 1951 should be challenged through a properly constituted election petit....
Point of law: Where the Government or any authority passes an order which is contrary to rules or law it becomes amenable to correction by the courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction
Interference in electoral matters after results are declared is barred by Articles 243-O and 243-ZG; the appropriate recourse is through an election petition.
Election petitions must provide specific allegations of procedural violations to maintain cause of action; vague claims without factual substantiation are insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
