2016 Supreme(Ori) 784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
VINEET SARAN AND B.R. SARANGI, JJ.
Assaf Ali Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 18908 of 2016
Decided On : 03-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sisir Kumar Purohit and A.D. Das.
For the Opp.Parties : Mr. B.P. Pradhan.
The Court emphasized the importance of pleadings supported by evidence and clarified the limitations of the Court's jurisdiction in issuing directions for election-related matters.
Headnote:
Election - Public Interest Litigation - Acts and Rules governing the election of Urban and Rural Local Bodies - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Electronic Voting Machines - CCTV installation - Women candidates reservation - Ability to read and write Oriya - Declaration of election results - Principle of not more than 2 children - Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1989 - Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334 - State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1989) 2 SCC 68
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation to ensure transparency and fairness in the election of Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads in Odisha. The petitioner contended that there was a likelihood of irregularities and malpractices in the upcoming elections and sought various measures to ensure free and fair elections.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations made in the writ petition with sufficient evidence. It held that the prayers made in the writ petition were general in nature and that the issues raised were within the domain of the legislature and election authorities, not the Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Court to issue directions for election-related matters, the sufficiency of evidence to support the petitioner's claims, and the appropriateness of the prayers made in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for pleadings to be supported by sufficient evidence and held that relief cannot be granted based on grounds outside the pleadings. It also highlighted that the Court cannot direct the legislature or election authorities to take specific actions related to elections.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from seeking redressal from appropriate authorities.
JUDGMENT :
VINEET SARAN, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation to ensure transparency and fairness in the election of Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads to be held in the month of February, 2017 with the following prayers:
(i) To facilitate the submission of nomination of candidates through online mode for contesting for all the posts of the Panchayat and Zilla Parishad in the official website of Odisha State Election Commission;
(ii) To upload the manually submitted nomination and affidavit of all candidates contesting for all the posts of all local bodies, in the official website of the Odisha State Election Commission, immediately;
(iii) To take necessary and appropriate steps for compulsory usage of Electronic Voting Machines by the 4th Respondent, in the election for all posts of Rural Local Bodies besides Urban Local Bodies in the State of Odisha, in the forthcoming Election.
(iv) To install CCTV and monitors both inside and outside the restrict areas of polling booths, counting booths and also ballot boxes security room.
(v) To ensure 50% reservation for women candidates for contesting in the elections for all the posts;
(vi) To ensure the ability to read and write Oriya for all the candidates contesting for any post whatsoever. (vii) To ensure the declaration of election result of all the Zilla Parishads, Panchayats and local bodies in one day;
(viii) To ensure uniform principle of not more than 2 children in respect of all the candidates to all the State polls.
2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner, who is the State Convenor of Rajiv Gandhi Panchayatraj Sangathan, Congress Committee, Orissa contends that the election for Urban Local Bodies and Rural Local Bodies in State of Odisha are to be conducted in accordance with the Acts and Rules governing the field. The Orissa State Election Commission is the competent authority to conduct free and fair elections for all posts of local bodies both in urban and rural areas. To ensure transparency in the election, State Election Officers and Returning Officers of the respective local bodies for both urban and rural areas are to function in consonance with the provisions of law. It is stated that there is every chance that the District Collectors and officials working under the control of the State Government run by the ruling party may abuse its power to influence them to act in their favour during the forthcoming local body election. Therefore, necessary impartial officers be deputed to conduct the ensuing elections in free and fair manner and, as such, no District Collectors should be allowed to act District Election Officers and independent observer is to be deputed for each district from other States equal to the rank of District Collectors. They must be given all monitoring powers for the entire district concerned in the local body election related matters to ensure free and fair elections.
3. Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that this Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure free and fair election in the ensuing Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad elections to be held in the month of February, 2017. It is urged that the petitioner apprehends that as a citizen, he apprehends that there is every likelihood that the election will not be conducted in free and fair manner. Therefore, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Reliance has also been placed an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in G. Kumar v. The Secretary and others, (W.P. No. 32092 of 2016, disposed of on 14.09.2016).
4. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate strenuously urged that the writ petition is not maintainable in apprehension and, as such, there is no cause of action surviving at the moment so as to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More so, on perusal o