Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 58740
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Ramachandra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 22466 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.R.Ravishankar, Vishwanath H.M.
For the Respondents: Rashmi Patel, S.Basavaraj, Goutham A.R.
An eligible member cannot be disfranchised from voting in an association election due to the administrative procrastination of the association's office bearers in processing membership applications.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition filed against exclusion of members from the voters list for an Association election - Allegation of procedural delay by the Association in enrolling members - Membership rules require enrollment one year prior to the election - Court finding that the administrative delay in processing timely applications should not prejudice the rights of the members - Interim order allowed petitioners to vote in a separate ballot box - Court directing the counting of those votes to prevent disfranchisement and inequity. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, 59 advocates practicing at Devanahalli, were excluded from the final voters list for the Advocates Association elections held on 20th November 2022. While the Association’s Bye-law required membership for at least one year prior to elections, the petitioners contended they had applied timely but were not enrolled due to the procrastination of the Association’s office bearers. An interim order allowed them to vote, with the votes kept in a sealed cover.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had submitted applications in time and that the delay in enrollment was solely attributable to the Association’s office bearers. It held that the administrative failure of the Association should not result in the disfranchisement of the petitioners.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners, who were enrolled as members less than a year before the election contrary to the Bye-laws, should be permitted to vote, and whether the Association's delay in processing their earlier membership applications warranted a relaxation of the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal principle established is that an eligible candidate/member cannot be disfranchised because of administrative laches or procrastination on the part of the governing body of an association.
Result: Petition allowed; Returning Officer directed to count the sealed votes and declare the results afresh.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. association bylaws restrict voting rights based on membership duration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. administrative delays by an organization cannot unfairly disfranchise members. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial appreciation of fair election management. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
The petitioners are advocates, who are practicing in various courts at Devanahalli. The elections were slated to be conducted for the Advocates’ Association, Devanahalli. The constitution of the High Power Committee or its aftermath need not be gone into. The petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court at the 11th hour on the ground that their names are missing from the voters list. They are 59 in number.
2. Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Basavaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - the High Power Committee.
3. Sri S. Basavaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Power Committee would submit that the names of the petitioners do not find a place in the voters list, owing to Bye-law No.6 of the Bye-laws of the Advocates’ Association, Devanahalli. The Bye-law No.6 reads as follows:
"6. Any person, who has been admitted as Ordinary Member by the Executive Committee shall from the date of admission be entitled to all the privileges of Membership.
Provided that, no Member shall be admitted one year prior to the date of General Body Meeting wherein election is being held."
(Emphasis added)
The afore-quoted Bye-law would determine only those practitioners to be the members, who have been enrolled as members one year prior to the date of the Annual General Body Meeting and only those members would get the privileges of being a member; one of the privilege is voting rights. The petitioners admittedly are enrolled as members of the Advocates’ Association, Devanahalli, only on 02.07.2022, not even four months prior to conduct of elections.4. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the High Power Committee is that, if their names would be enlisted in the voters list, it would run counter to the Bye-laws. They are therefore, denied voting rights in the elections held on 20.11.2022.
5. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would however, refute the submissions to contend that, it is not on account of their folly that the petitioners lost their right to vote, but the folly of the office bearers of the Association, who procrastinated in listing the names of the petitioners as the members of the Association till the year 2019. In the year 2019, the Bye-laws came to be amended and therefore, the applications were directed to be filed which the petitioners in amended format, which they did file. Again, the Association did not take up the issue of enrolling the petitioners as members, despite filing their applications. This lead to ticking of time, the elections being notified and the High Power Committee being given the task of conduct of the elections.
6. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, when the petitioners had sought for an interim prayer to cast their votes, this Court had passed a detailed order noticing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. The interim order granted on 18.11.2022, reads as follows:
"The petitioners, in these petitions, seek to quash the notification of Final Voter List dated 07-11-2022 passed by the High Power Committee wherein the names of the petitioners are not found.
2. The petitioners claim to be practicing in the Courts at Devanahalli and claim to be members of the Devanahalli Advocates Association. The membership of the petitioners come to be accepted by the Association on 01-07-2022 terming it to be the new members of the Association. The same was notified and were also issued necessary forms to come in as members of the Associati
