1. Challenge to directions for acceptance of electronic nominations in panchayat elections — conflict between Information Technology Act 2000 and West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act 2003. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 848
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST) AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO .8515 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 12590 of 2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8516 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 15123 of 2018)
Decided On : 24-08-2018
IMPORTANT POINTS
West Bengal State Election Commission being a constitutional authority not covered by the IT Act.
Any reform of electoral process including filing nomination in electronic form can only be carried out by a legislative amendment. Issue of mandamus by High Court to accept nomination in electronic form was not permissible. Such direction held violative of Article 243 O and without jurisdiction under Article 226.
Any dispute in regard to the validity of the election has to be espoused only through election petition.
Headnote:(a) Information Technology Act 2000 – Section 6 – West Bengal State Election Commission being a constitutional authority not covered by the Act. (Para 15)
(b) Panchayat Elections Act – Section 46 r/w West Bengal Panchayat Elections Rules 2006 – Constituting a complete code in regard to the conduct of the election – Neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate the filing of nominations in the electronic form – Any reform of electoral process including filing nomination in electronic form can only be carried out by a legislative amendment – High Court issuing mandamus to accept nomination in electronic form – Held, not permissible. (Para 18)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court issuing directions after commencement of electoral process – Held violative of Article 243 O and without jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 19)
(d) Panchayat Elections Act – Section 64, 79 and 80 r/w Article 243 O – Any dispute in regard to the validity of the election has to be espoused only through election petition – Courts should not exercise jurisdiction once the electoral process is set in motion. (Para 27, 29, 31)
(1996) 3 SCC 416; 1952 SCE 218; (1985) 4 SCC 689 – Relied upon
(1998) 1 SCC 405 – Referred
Facts of the case:
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court issued directions on 8 May 2018 to the State Election Commission to accept nominations submitted in the electronic form. The names of those candidates were directed to be published in the list of candidates contesting the panchayat elections of 2018. In issuing these directions, the High Court was conscious of the fact that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 did not apply to the West Bengal State Election Commission, which is a constitutional authority. Nonetheless, the High Court held that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 shall be deemed to be read into the provisions of the West Bengal Elections Act 2003. Holding that such a construction would further the democratic process and facilitate a fair and free election, the High Court issued directions for the acceptance of nominations in the electronic form. The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings by the West Bengal State Election Commission.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought not issue the directions.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- information technology law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Legality of electronic nominations versus statutory mandate for physical filing — necessity of electronic submissions to ensure free and fair elections amidst reported violence. (Para 13 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. State Election Commission is a constitutional authority not governed by the Information Technology Act — Panchayat Elections Act constitutes a complete code prohibiting electronic nominations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Judicial restraint prohibits modifying statutes to permit electronic filings — Article 243-O bars interference in ongoing elections, restricting challenges to statutory election petitions. (Para 18 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
5. High Court order set aside — challenges to uncontested seats restricted to election petitions — filing period extended under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. Does the Information Technology Act 2000 apply to a State Election Commission for the purpose of electronic filings?
No. The State Election Commission is a constitutional authority and does not fall within the ambit of Section 6(1)(a) of the IT Act 2000, as it is not a body or agency owned or controlled by the government. (Para 15 )
7. Can a court read provisions into an election statute to allow electronic nominations to ensure free and fair elections?
No. Where a statute and its rules constitute a complete code for conducting elections, any reform to permit electronic filing must be carried out through legislative amendment, not judicial direction. (Para 16 , 18 )
8. Can the judiciary interfere with the election process once it has commenced?
No. Under Article 243-O of the Constitution and settled principles of self-restraint, the election process should not be interdicted mid-stage; all disputes must be resolved via election petitions after results are declared. (Para 19 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
9. What is the legal remedy when candidates are allegedly prevented from filing nominations, leading to uncontested seats?
The remedy is to file an election petition under the governing state law. General assumptions of obstruction cannot set aside results; factual disputes must be resolved through evidence in individual election petitions. (Para 29 , 31 )
10. Can the court extend the statutory period for filing election petitions?
Yes. The court may exercise its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the limitation period for filing election petitions to ensure justice, especially when proceedings were pending. (Para 30 , 31 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. After the process commenced in the State of West Bengal for elections to the panchayats, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court issued directions on 8 May 2018 to the State Election Commission to accept nominations submitted in the electronic form. The names of those candidates were directed to be published in the list of candidates contesting the panchayat elections of 2018. In issuing these directions, the High Court was conscious of the fact that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 did not apply to the West Bengal State Election Commission, which is a constitutional authority. Nonetheless, the High Court held that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 shall be deemed to be read into the provisions of the West Bengal Elections Act 2003. Holding that such a construction would further the democratic process and facilitate a fair and free election, the High Court issued directions for the acceptance of nominations in the electronic form. The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings by the West Bengal State Election Commission.
3. Notice was issued by this Court on 10 May 2018 and the following interim directions were issued:
“(i) There shall be a stay of the impugned judgment and order dated 8.5.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Cout;
(ii) The Panchayat election scheduled to be held on 14.5.2018, shall proceed as per law;
(iii) The petitioners i.e. the West Bengal State Election Commission and its functionaries shall see to it that the election which is scheduled for 14.5.2018 is held in absolute fairness, keeping in view the concept of purity of an election in a democracy;
(iv) The election process in respect of the constituencies shall be completed in all aspects and the results of the election can be notified as per law; and
(v) The petitioners shall not notify the result in respect of the constituencies where there has been no contest, without the leave of this Court.”
4. Arrayed as respondents to these proceedings are the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the State of West Bengal through the Secretary, Department of Home, the Secretary in the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, the All India Trinamool Congress, Ananda Bazar Patrika, Times of India and the Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal through its Vice President. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also heard a large number of intervenors in these proceedings.
5. A reference to the salient events will facilitate an understanding of the controversy. On 31 March 2018, the State government issued a notification for holding panchayat elections in West Bengal on 1,3 and 5 May 2018. The State Election Commission announced a schedule for the ensuing panchayat elections, exercising power under Sections 42 and 43 of the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act 2003 (“Panchayat Elections Act”). The first notification issued by the State Election Commission in respect of twelve districts stipulated the election schedule for gram panchayats, panchayat samitis and zilla parishads governed by the West Bengal Panchayat Act 1973. The last date for making nominations was 9 April 2018; scrutiny of nominations was to take place on 11 April 2018; the last date for withdrawal of candidatures was 16 April 2018; and the poll, if necessary, was to be concluded on 1 May 2018. By two other notifications also of 2 April 2018, the election schedule was announced respectively for two districts and six districts. The election programme was the same, save and except for the dates of polling which were 3 and 5 May 2018.
6. On 6 April 2018, a public interest litigation was moved before the Calcutta High Court by a person - Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury of the Indian National Congress for challenging the election notification. Simultaneously a writ petition [W P (C) No 302 of 2018] under Article 32 of the Constitution was instituted before this Court
