PIL 112/19

1

SSC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 112 OF 2019

Asha w/o Rajendra Jangam @

Asha d/o Uttamrao Aglave and others

....Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India and others

....Respondents

Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents 1, 2 & 6.

Mr. Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for respondents 3 to 5.

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : JULY 06, 2022.

PER COURT :

This public interest litigation is at the instance of twelve

citizens of the country. The first eleven petitioners are holders of

public offices and claim that their services have been utilized in

the past by the Election Commission of India for conducting polls.

The twelfth petitioner claims to be a person having acquaintance

with rules and regulations regarding elections and has assisted all

other petitioners in collecting information so as to protect the

rights of a ‘voter on election duty’, as defined in rule 17 of the

Conduct of Election Rules (hereafter ‘1961 Rules’ for short).

2.

The concern expressed in the public interest litigation stems

from the personal experience of the first eleven petitioners. They

claim that although public officers deputed for election duty are

PIL 112/19

2

responsible for free, fair and smooth conduct of polls, at times,

they stand deprived of their right to vote. Accordingly, it has been

prayed that: -

(A)

record and proceedings giving rise to the public

interest litigation be called for;

(B)

the Election Commission of India be directed to

ensure that a ‘voter on election duty’ is not deprived in

future of his right to vote;

(C)

the respondents 1 to 4 be directed to initiate action

against the respondent no. 5 – District Election Officer -

and other concerned subordinate officers for violating

sub-rule (4) of rule 23 of the 1961 Rules;

(D)

the respondents be directed to ensure that a ‘voter

on election duty’ is entitled to exercise his right to vote

being a part and parcel of his right guaranteed by Article

19-1(a) of the Constitution as well as count the same,

irrespective of the consequences, for the purposes of

general election held in 2019 for Aurangabad

parliamentary constituency.

3.

Although the petitioners refer to certain instances where

postal ballots were not received by voters on election duty, Mr.

Killarikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

conceded that in the past couple of years several corrective steps

have been taken by the Election Commission of India and the

situation is now vastly improved. However, it is his contention that

the Election Commission ought to be directed to ensure that those

who opt for voting by applying in Form 12 receive the ballot

papers well in time so as to exercise his/her voting right

PIL 112/19

3

effectively.

4.

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

3 to 5 including the Election Commission of India invites our

attention to the averments made in the reply affidavit and

contends that proper measures have been taken to ameliorate the

grievances of voters on election duty. He has also invited our

attention to rule 20 of the 1961 Rules and contended that such

provisions provide adequate opportunity to the voters on election

duty to exercise their rights of voting and the protection

envisaged therein is sufficient to hold that there is no denial of

any right.

5.

For facility of convenience, rule 20 is reproduced

hereunder: -

“20. Intimation by voters on election duty.— (1) A

voter on election duty who wishes to vote by post at

an election shall send an application in Form 12 to the

returning officer so as to reach him at least seven days

or such shorter period as the returning officer may

allow before the date of poll; and if the returning

officer is satisfied that the applicant is a voter o