Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, JJ.
Chevireddy Mohith Reddy, S/o. Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The Election Commission of India, Rep. by its Chief Election Commissioner and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12059 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 election matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, contesting as an MLA, alleged electoral offences and sought to challenge the scrutiny process of election documents, claiming he was denied the opportunity to present his grievances during the scrutiny.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to present his grievances during the scrutiny, but emphasized that such disputes must be addressed through an election petition as per constitutional provisions.
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) against questioning elections except through an election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions, as established by Article 329(b) of the Constitution, and that the directions of the Election Commission do not create enforceable rights for candidates.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
ORDER :
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :
A. declaring the proceedings issued vide Memo No.18/CEO-Peshi/ 2024-2 dated 17.05.2024 by the Respondent No.2 being per seillegal, Unconstitutional being violative of provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to conduct e-novo/ to reschedule the scrutiny of Form 17A and other documents in 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency and pass such order(s) ...
B. declaring the actions of Respondents in not conducting repolling in P.S.No.64 - Neladaanipalle Of Pakala Mandal, P.S.No.110 - Chinna Ramapuram Of Chandragiri Mandal, P.S.No.156 - Kasipentla Of Chandragiri Mandal, P.S.No.157 - Kalroad Palle of Chandragiri Mandal as illegal, Unconstitutional being violative of provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to conduct repolling of P.S.No.64 –Neladaanipalle Of Pakala Mandal, P.S.No.110 – Chinna Ramapuram Of Chandragiri Mandal, P.S.No.156 – Kasipentla Of Chandragiri Mandal, P.S.No.157 – Kalroad Palle of Chandragiri Mandal and pass such order(s) …”
2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner is contesting as a Member of Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) on behalf of Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party from 166 – Chandragiri Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as ‘Constituency’). The said Constituency was categorized to be vulnerable. Hence, the Election Commission of India has directed live web-casting of the entire Constituency, to keep a check on electoral offences. Since the very nascent stage of elections, there have been instances of commission of electoral offences and violence. One Pulivarthi Venkata Mani Prasad @ Nani, the contesting candidate of Telugu Desam Party, and his supporters, resorted to electoral offences.
(b) On 13.05.2024, i.e. on the date of polling, the petitioner visited various booths, in and around the Constituency, and found that there were widespread instances of voter suppression, ballot tampering, and incidents of physical violence at several polling stations. Several complaints were sent by the petitioner through his office by way of e-mails to the respondent authorities. However, the respondent authorities turned a blind eye to such complaints. In respect of Polling Station Nos.64, 110, 156 and 157, the atrocities and electoral offences were also brought to the notice of respondent No.4 through e-mail dated 13.05.2024. However, no action was initiated.
(c) While so, respondent No.4, vide Roc.H/09/2024 dated 14.05.2024 informed that scrutiny of 17A and other Documents by the General Observer, 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency is scheduled on 14.05.2024 at 3:00 P.M. at Strong Room, School of Engineering and Technology, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati and requested all the contesting candidates or their election agents or authorized representatives to attend the event without fail. Accordingly, the petitioner along with his agent reached the venue at around 2:50 P.M. Many people gathered around the said area and the petitioner was seated in a different room to avoid confrontation, because of the law and order situation. The petitioner categorically stated that there are some issues, in respect of certain booths, and that he got some objections, which he wants to ventilate at the time of scrutiny. The petitioner was assured that he would be called during the scrutiny process. However, scrutiny was finished in the petitioner’s absence.
(d) On 18.05.2024, the petitioner questioned the respondent authorities for their inaction on the petitioner’s representations, for which the authorities informed the petitioner th
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, not through writ petitions.
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).
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.
Writ petitions challenging election irregularities must be addressed by election tribunals, not courts, emphasizing the constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters.
Election petitions must provide specific allegations of procedural violations to maintain cause of action; vague claims without factual substantiation are insufficient.
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....
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
