Common Order

K.K.SASIDHARAN ,J.

INTRODUCTION :

1. In these batch of writ petitions and contempt petitions, the main question that falls for determination is whether non-compliance of the directions issued by the High Court with respect to compulsory videography and uniform distribution of police force requisitioned from other States would automatically nullify the election without any proof that such violation materially affected the results of election.

W.P.No.24078 of 2011

2. The writ petitioner is the Secretary of Legal Wing of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [hereinafter referred to as "DMK"], which is a recognized political party. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to conduct re-poll in 239 booths of Chennai Corporation as the election was marred by poll violence, booth capturing and rigging.

3. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would contend :-

(i) DMK was in power for the period from 2006 to 2011. General Elections took place in the year 2011 and the rival political organization, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ["AIADMK", for short], came to power and took oath of office on 16 May 2011. Subsequently, the Government announced election to local body and the second respondent was appointed as the Election Commissioner. The second respondent was earlier functioning as Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation.The said Corporation was dealing in Indian Made Foreign Liqour. The second respondent was favouring a particular distillery owned by the associates of the person in power. Subsequent to the announcement of local body election, at the instance of DMK, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.23557 of 2011. The said writ petition was taken up along with other writ petitions. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ petitions on 14 October 2011, directed the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to videograph compulsorily all the booths in the Chennai city Corporation. The Election Commission was directed to ascertain the feasibility of web casting election in the Chennai City Municipal Corporation. Similarly, directions were issued to notify the sensitive booths in the rest of the State for the purpose of video graphing the poll. The State Election Commissioners of other States who have been invited to observe the election process were designated as independent observers and the Commission was directed to assign areas to them for observation in such a manner that the entire State is covered.

(ii) Similarly, police personnel who were drafted/requisitioned from the State of Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra were directed to be distributed uniformly so as to ensure that all polling booths which have been declared as sensitive areas shall be posted with such police personnel along with the State Police. The State Election Commission was further directed to take such other steps that would be required to ensure conduct of election in a free and fair manner without giving any room for complaints.

(iii) Polling commenced on 17 October 2011 at 7 a.m. Election Commission has not taken any steps to videograph the entire polling booths. Directions issued by the Court for video graphing and web casting were deliberately flouted thereby enabling rowdy elements to cause trouble near the booths and to see that voters loyal to DMK are chased away;

(iv) The polling was at low percentage initially in all the 239 booths and it got accelerated after 2.30 p.m. and the members of the ruling party had cast bogus votes. Election to 239 named polling booths were not conducted properly. The petitioner and the duly appointed agents preferred complaints before the polling officers and the Election Commission. The representation narrated the non-availability of authorized officers near the polling booths.

(v) The State Election Commissioner, Returning Officer and the City Police Commissioner deliberately avoided the phone