2021 Supreme(Mad) 183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJIB BANERJEE, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
Dravida Munnetara Kazhagam, Rep. by its Organising Secretary R.S. Bharathi, Chennai - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 20027 of 2020
Decided On : 17-03-2021

Point of Law: Representation of the People Act, 1951- Assembly elections - validity of Section 60(c) of the Act of 1951 - challenge here was completely without basis, since the experience of the procedure introduced by the Election Commission will reveal how such process may be more refined and attuned to the geography and the climate of the place.

Headnote:

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 60 – Conduct of Elections (Amendment) Rules, 2019 – Rules 27 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 324 to 329, 226 – Issuance of a writ of declaration – Ground of excessive delegation – Propriety of an amendment effected in 2003 to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has been called into question by one of the leading political parties in the State along with myriad other grievances in respect of the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India and the classification of persons who may exercise their franchise otherwise than by presenting themselves at a polling booth in the forthcoming assembly elections. – According to the petitioning political party, the introduction of clause (c) in Section 60 of the Act of 1951 amounts to excessive delegation as it is perceived to confer virtual legislative authority to the Election Commission. – While the petitioner agrees that the Election Commission has the primacy in conducting assembly elections, it suggests that matters such as the classes of persons who may vote otherwise than by attending the election booth must be completely indicated in any rules that may be framed by the Central Government and the Election Commission must not be left with any authority to pick and choose from such classes of persons. – The lesser argument by the petitioner in such regard is that, at any rate, Section 60(c) of the Act of 1951 does not permit the Election Commission to indicate any classes of persons to permit them to vote otherwise than by attending the election booth and the entire authority in such regard has to be exercised by the Central Government upon drafting appropriate rules.

Findings of Court:

There does not seem to be any arbitrariness in the classification of the persons permitted by the Rules of 1961 to cast their vote by postal ballot. – The consideration appears to have been as to who may not be able to physically attend a polling booth to cast her vote. – If such is the consideration, there is no arbitrariness in the classes of persons enumerated by the amendments of 2019 and 2020, particularly, as the object appears to be to afford such classes of persons their basic right to participate in the democratic process – As regards the contention that the words “postal ballot” imply that the postal paper should be served only through the Department of Posts, we find that the expression “postal ballot” is not defined either in the Act of 1951 or the 1961 Rules. – In the absence of a statutory definition that limits the ambit of the expression to service through the Department of Posts, we are inclined to accept the contention of the Union that it should be construed expansively so as to include personal service of the postal ballot paper – Only area which is of some concern is the manner in which some personnel from certain areas have been notified as belonging to the essential services without several others being included. – To be fair to the Commission, it could not elicit any views from the State Government despite invitation. – The submission of the Commission in such regard is that it considered all those who applied to it to be regarded as part of the essential services – If there is any criticism which the Commission deserves in the present context, it may be in its constricted approach in covering the entire gamut of essential services. – There are many who go about their normal duties, whether on an election day or a holiday, so that the rest of the population can exercise their rights or enjoy their freedom. – Such people also serve who only stand and wait, and it may do well for the Election Commission to include the larger section of personnel involved in essential services to allow them the right to vote when they are away from their constituencies in discharge of their duties as part of the essential services. – There is no merit to the petitioner's challenge, whether to the validity of Section 60(c) of the Act of 1951 or to the impugned guidelines issued by the Election Commission or, generally, to how the Commission has gone about in its endeavour to conduct the ensuing assembly elections in this State. – That is not to suggest that the challenge here was completely without basis, since the experience of the procedure introduced by the Election Commission will reveal how such process may be more refined and attuned to the geography and the climate of the place.

Result: Writ Petition Dismissed