Point of Law: Writ of mandamus - Election - Writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself - Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, CJ

Petitioner, claiming to be a Public Health Activist, and a strong proponent for transparency and truth in India's electoral process, has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation, for the following reliefs:

(i) To declare that unregistered Political Fronts in the nature of Left Democratic Front (LDF), United Democratic Front (UDF), and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) do not have any manner of right to set up candidates or to engage in any kind of election campaign, by printing and publishing posters or advertisements in the print or electronic media during elections conducted in accordance with the provisions contained the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling and commanding the 3rd respondent viz., Election Commission of India, represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, to ensure that unregistered Political Fronts in the nature of Left Democratic Front (LDF), United Democratic Front (UDF), and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) engage in any kind of election campaign, by printing and publishing posters or advertisements in the print or electronic media, during elections conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as if, candidates are set up by such unregistered political fronts.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling and commanding the 3rd respondent, to regulate the functioning of the pre-poll alliances of registered political parties during election campaigns conducted under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling and commanding the 3rd respondent, to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P6 representation submitted by the petitioner, within a time frame that this Court may consider reasonable.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that petitioner is a qualified Doctor from Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, and an MBA holder in International Business from Pace University, New York. He submitted Exhibit-P1 representation dated 31.03.2014, to the Election Commission of India, respondent No.3, requesting to remove flex boards from all the States of India, including Kerala, which were instituted on behalf of various candidates, and also to disqualify the candidates campaigning themselves, as sponsored by Political Front candidates. However, no action was taken.

3. Petitioner has further stated that as per Notification No.464/KLLA/ 2021 dated 12th March, 2021 (Exhibit P2), the Hon'ble Governor of Kerala, has notified Kerala Assembly Election, 2021, calling upon the Assembly Constituencies in the State, to elect members for the Kerala Legislative Assembly. In furtherance of Exhibit-P2 notification, Election Commission of India have notified the poll scheduled in accordance with Section 30 the Act. Thereafter, the election process was completed on 4.5.2021 and this writ petition is not intended to call in question the said election or to challenge the election of any returned candidate.

4. Petitioner has further stated that during the election campaign of 27th respondent, an MLA of Changanacherry, Kottayam District, the petitioner had occasion to view a poster, published by LDF, soliciting votes, and that similar posters were published by other Political Fronts. According to the petitioner, the Political Fronts are not registered under the Representation of the People Act, 1951; they do not have a constitution or membership; and that, there is no organisational set up recognised by law, nor is there any regulatory mechanism, to regulate the functioning of a front.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.27 was set up by respondent No.14, a political party, which is presently a part of LDF and had previously been in UDF fold. The Op