The main legal point established in the judgment is that the speeches delivered by the second respondent were within the scope of his duties and responsibilities under Section 20(A) of the RP Act, 1951, and were aimed at creating awareness for free, fair, and corruption-free elections.

1. The petitioner claiming herself to be the President of a Woman Welfare organisation and a permanent resident of Madurai has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the first respondent to initiate appropriate action on the second respondent based on her representation dated 29.03.2011.

2. According to the petitioner, she has filed the writ petition for conducting free and fair elections in Madurai city and that after the elections were notified, the second respondent, the District Election Officer participated in various meetings held for election awareness campaign conducted in colleges such as Fathima college, Meenakshi college for woman and in such meetings, the second respondent has informed the students that the change should come through elections. The petitioner further stated that this statement of the second respondent was widely published in various news papers and according to the petitioner, the action of the second respondent indirectly conveys that the change should come in the State with regard to the ruling party. It appears that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the first respondent on 29.03.2011, against the second respondent, and has approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to take immediate action on such representation. The news item published in the Tamil daily "Dinamani" dated 26.03.2011 has been filed in the typed set of papers.

3. When the matter came up for admission before this Bench on 31.03.2011, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, to file an affidavit on behalf of the second respondent. We further directed, the reporter of Dinamani News paper, who was present in Court, to inform the editor of the News paper to file an affidavit. In due compliance with the direction, affidavits have been filed by the second respondent and the Editor of the newspaper.

4. Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the statement made by the second respondent that change should come through elections will influence the mind of the general public more particularly the voters and it will be understood by the public that the party other than the ruling party has to come to power. The learned counsel further submits that the action of the second respondent is in violation of the check list provided by the Election Commission of India for the District Election officers. Further, it is submitted that the second respondent has to discharge his functions in accordance with Section 20(A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951), and his action is not in accordance with the said provisions. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the statement made by the second respondent denotes bias and the duty of the second respondent is not to influence the voters by asking them to bring change through election which tantamounts to supporting the opposition parties in the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner does not want to stall the election in any manner, but is aggrieved by the speech made by the second respondent, the contents of which reveals the mens rea and the second respondent has no jurisdiction to address any meeting after the elections have been notified. The learned counsel reiterated that the speech of the second respondent is not part of his duty under Section 20(A) of the RP Act, 1951.

5. Mr. G.Rajagoplan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Election Commission of India has devised a comprehensive plan of action for enhanced electoral participation in the forth coming elections and the second respondent was bound to create awareness among voters of their rights and duties and the importance of voting as per conscience. Further, it is submitted that the Election Commission of India has formulated a policy for combating role of money power in elections in which detailed instructions have be