MCC exemptions for urgent non-electoral judicial infrastructure works must be processed timely to avoid court disruption.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMEN SEN, CJ.

1. This W.P(PIL) has been filed by the Registrar General on behalf of the High Court of Kerala. It relates to the infrastructure of the High Court and other Courts in the State.

2. In view of the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, the Registrar General of the High Court of Kerala addressed a letter dated 21.03.2026 to the 2^nd respondent namely the Chief Electoral Officer to make a request for grant of necessary exemptions from the provisions of the MCC to enable the Department to proceed with the execution of the works that are essential and urgent in nature mentioned in the said communication. The request was confined strictly to works of an internal and infrastructural nature within the High Court premises and did not involve any policy decision, public announcement, financial disbursement or activity having any nexus with or bearing upon the electoral process. However, the 2^nd respondent by letter dated 2^nd April 2026 informed the Registrar General that the proposal requires prior clearance from the Election Commission of India, and directed that such proposals should be routed through the Screening Committee constituted by the Government of Kerala.

3. We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India. He submits that in view of Clause ‘C’, under instructions Serial No.17, the provisions of Model Code of Conduct may apply. Our attention is also drawn to Clause 5(1) under the Welfare Schemes and Governmental Works which stipulates that no work shall start in respect of which even if work orders have been issued before the Model Code came into effect, if the work has actually not started in the field.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State has drawn our attention to Clause 15 of the Model Code of Conduct and the same reads as follows: “The following type of new works (whether beneficiary or work oriented) that fulfill all the following conditions before comes into effect, can be taken up under intimation to the Commission.

a. Full funding has been tied up.

b. Administrative, technical and financial sanctions have been obtained c. Tender has been floated, evaluated and awarded and d. There is contractual obligation to start and end the work within a given time frame and failing which there is an obligation to impose penalty on the contractor.

e. In case of any of the above conditions not being met in such cases prior approval of the Commission shall be sought and obtained.”

5. The learned Counsel for the High Court has submitted that details and operational aspects of the Screening Committee were not communicated to the petitioner in a timely manner by the office of the 2nd Respondent and were made available only after a considerable lapse of time, thereby contributing to further delay in processing the request submitted by the Petitioner. The execution of the proposed works involves multiple stages including administrative sanction, tendering, award of contract, mobilisation of resources and actual execution. Each of these stages requires sufficient lead time, and any delay at the initial stage of approval would render the entire exercise impracticable within the limited duration of the Summer Vacation. It is further submitted that failure to execute the said works during the Summer Vacation would necessarily result in the same being carried out during working days, thereby causing disruption to court proceedings, inconvenience to litigants, advocates and staff, and adversely affecting the administration of justice. The application of the Model Code of Conduct to such essential judicial infrastructure works, in a rigid and mechanical manner, is likely to defeat the very object of the MCC and results in unwarranted interference with the functioning of a constitutional i