The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Election Commission, while exercising its power under S.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, acts quasi-judicially and the order registering a political party is a quasi-judicial order. The court also outlined exceptions where the Election Commission is not deprived of its power to cancel the registration, such as in cases of fraud, amendment of nomenclature, or similar grounds not requiring an inquiry.

1. The foremost question that arises in this group of appeals is whether the Election Commission of India under S.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has power to de-register or cancel the registration of political party on the ground that it has called for hartal by force, intimidation or coercion and thereby violated the provisions of the Constitution of India.

2. The aforesaid question has arisen out of the directions issued by the High Court of Kerala on the Writ Petitions filed for enforcement of decision in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar & Ors. 1997 (2) KLT 1007 = AIR (1998) SC 184 wherein it was held that "there is a distinction between 'bundh' and "hartal". A call for a bundh involves coercion of others into towing the lines of those who called for the bundh and that the act was unconstitutional, since it violated the rights and liberty of other citizens guaranteed under the Constitution."

3. In the Writ Petitions filed before the High Court it was alleged that despite the law having been declared by the Supreme Court that calling of a bundh is unconstitutional, the political parties in the State of Kerala continued to call bundh under the name and cover of hartal. It was prayed that direction to be issued to the Government of Kerala for taking appropriate measures to give effect to the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Communist Party of India (supra). The High Court from time to time issued orders and in compliance thereof, the Chief Secretary as well as Director General of Police issued necessary orders, but such directions proved ineffective and the political parties continued to give call for bundh in the name of hartal. It was also alleged that some of the writ petitioners submitted representations to the Election Commission of India for taking necessary proceedings against the registered political parties for de-registration as they had contravened the provisions of the Constitution, but no action has been taken by the Election Commission in that regard. In one of the Writ Petitions one of the reliefs sought for with which we are concerned in this group of appeals, was to issue a direction to the Election Commission of India to take action against the registered political parties for violation of their undertaking that they will abide by the Constitution. In nutshell, the case of the writ petitioners before the High Court was that by holding a hartal and enforcing it by force, threat and coercion, there is the performance of an unconstitutional act and one of the clear and definite ways of preventing such unconstitutional activity on the part of political parties registered under the Representation of the People Act is to take steps for their de-registration on the ground of violation of the Constitution of India.

4. In the said Writ Petitions, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) filed counter affidavit and stated therein that they did not give call for a bundh and, in fact, the call given by them was for a hartal. It is also stated therein that at the call for hartal, it was optional for every citizen either to open or close their shops and in fact there was only an appeal to public to join the hartal and further there was no element of compulsion in the appeal and, therefore, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) did not violate either the provisions of the Constitution or decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Community Party of India v. Bharat Kumar (supra). Indian National Congress (I) also filed a counter affidavit submitting that the call for hartal given by them was not a bundh. It was also stated therein that giving a call for hartal was a part freedom of speech and expression protected under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution and it was merely a device to elicit the support of the people towards their specific issues highlighted by political parties, organisation and also