IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. Somarajan, J.
Velayudhan V.K., S/o. Kurumban – Petitioner
Versus
P.V.Sreenijin, S/o. M.A.Vasu And Ors. – Respondents
EL.PET. NO. 3 OF 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 29A,33(2),80,81,83,84 and 100 - Election petition - Question of maintainability of election petition – Improper acceptance of nomination of returned candidate other respondents and for a declaration that he is returned candidate - Ground of attack against nomination submitted by respondent on reason that he belongs to a political party following concept of secularism, is not expected to disclose his religious identity in nomination though there is a specific column for making a declaration with respect to his eligibility to contest in a particular constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes - Those contesting in that constituency reserved either for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes should make a declaration as required in nomination disclosing his/her eligibility to contest in that particular constituency by specifying religion and caste - Petitioner submits disclosure of his religious and community status in nomination would amount to alteration of concept of secularism to be maintained by a political party, is per se found to be against mandate.
Finding of the court: Importance of maintaining secular concept by political parties/ organisations registered under Section 29A of Representation of the People Act,1951 - Disclosure of eligibility of a particular candidate by making a declaration as required under a nomination to contest in a particular constituency reserved for a sect of people-either schedule castes or scheduled tribes will not violate concept of secularism - It is a mandate to be complied with by candidate to disclose and reveal his eligibility to contest in that particular constituency - Legal position would be different when caste or religion was used so as to canvass vote by playing 'corrupt practice' - No such case of 'corrupt practice' was either pleaded or advanced by petitioner - Only case raised is improper acceptance of nomination ignoring declaration made by petitioner revealing his status and showing eligibility based on religion and community, which according to petitioner violates concept of secularism to be followed by a political party and all its members - It is so unfortunate that petitioner did not understand the real spirit of decision rendered by Supreme Court on an alleged 'corrupt practice'.
Result: Election petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
The maintainability of the election petition came up as a preliminary issue.
2. Heard both sides on the question of maintainability of the election petition.
3. Petitioner came up under Sections 80,81,83,84 and 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the election conducted in 084 Kunnathunadu Scheduled Caste Reserved Constituency in Kerala State Legislative Assembly Election held in the year 2021 on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination of the returned candidate/first respondent and other respondents and for a declaration that he is the returned candidate. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 7 belong to various political parties registered under the Representation of the People Act,1951. Admittedly, the constituency 084 Kunnathunadu is a reserved constituency for scheduled castes. The sum and substance of the allegation is that the nomination papers submitted by the returned candidate, who is the first respondent and the other candidates, the remaining respondents, were improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, though there is declaration with respect to the caste and religion in which he/they belongs without adhering to the constitutional intention and the concept of secularism to be followed by all political parties registered under the Act. The Apex Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D.Commachen (dead) by Lrs. And others [Civil Appeal No.37 of 1992 dated 2.1.2017] had considered the importance of maintaining secularism in political parties/organisations registered under the Act. Paragraph 310 of the said judgment is extracted below for reference:-
4. The legal position so settled is taken as a ground of attack against the nomination submitted by the returned candidate-the first respondent on the reason that since he belongs to a particular political party following the concept of secularism, is not expected to disclose his religious identity in the nomination though there is a specific column for making a declaration with respect to his eligibility to contest in a particular constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. What is settled by the Apex Court in the above said decision is the importance of maintaining secular concepts by political parties/organisations registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act,1951. The political party or organisation so registered under Section 29A of the Act will have its own legal entity apart from the candidates who were contested or elected. It is by virtue of Article 332 of the Constitution of India certain constituencies are reserved exclusively for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it is a constitutional mandate. Necessarily those who want to contest in that constituency reserved either for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes should make a declaration as required in the nomination disclosing his/her eligibility to contest in that particular constituency by specifying the religion and the caste in accordance with the mandate under Section 33(2) o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.