Failure on the part of State Election Commission and Police Authorities proved.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Free and fair elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions and just as it is said that justice must not only be done, but must also seem to be done; similarly, elections should not only be fairly and properly held, but also seem to be so conducted as to inspire confidence in the mind of the electors that everything has been done aboveboard and has been done to ensure free elections. This was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali – Vs – B.D.Jatti & Others reported in 1970 (3) SCC 147. In the said case, the Supreme Court further held: - "It will be a sad day in the history of our country that the police and the Government Officers create even an impression that they are interfering for the benefit of one or the other candidate. This is particularly so if a candidate is holding an important position or assignment like respondent No.1, at the material time was Minister in the State."

This is exactly the allegation of the petitioners in these cases, who have alleged that in the matter of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Elections, the total Government machinery, including the Police, the Government Officers as also the State Election Commission interfered for the benefit of the ruling party, the 5th respondent.

2. On the day i.e., 110. 06, when polling for election of 155 Ward Commissioners of Chennai Municipal Corporation were in progress, a special mention was made on behalf of one of the petitioner, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as AIADMK) to the Honble the Chief Justice for immediate hearing of the Public Interest Litigation on the ground that the ruling partymen, i.e., personnel of the 5th respondent, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as DMK), are committing serious irregularities, engaged goondas, caused large scale violence and after attacking candidates, partymen and others, captured most of the polling booths in all 155 wards. On an urgent mention, on 110. 06 itself, the case was taken up and respondents were served with notice and on their appearance the case was heard in detail at the stage of admission for its final disposal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-AIADMK, would submit that the Public Interest Litigation was filed in order to uphold the majesty of law, rule of law and for maintenance of truth and functioning of democracy in the local body elections expected to be conducted under the superintendence, directions and control of the State Election Commission. The basic principle of the Constitution was to achieve the administration of local bodies to serve the public at the basic level for which Part IX (Panchayat) and Part IX-A (Municipality) consisting of Article 243 to 243ZG was incorporated effective from 24. 93 to achieve a democratic and republican institution from its grass-root level. It is alleged that the first respondent, the State Election Commission has been gained from the clout of the 5th respondent partymen and in connivance with the said party members, has allowed indulgence of large scale violence resulting in booth capturing. According to the petitioner-AIADMK, it had more number of supporters in the Chennai city, considered to be their bastion. The 5th respondent party, known for its atrocities, dare-devil activities, unmindful of law and order, etc., sensing that if the elections are held properly, the 5th respondent party may not succeed and so they pre-planned, scripted, rehearsed and dramatised on 110. 06, right from the first minute of the poll, namely, 7.00 a.m. itself and adopted the following modus operandi in all 155 wards to rig the polls.

/The rowdy elements were getting prepared the previous night itself with dangerous weapons like sickles, knives, broad blades, etc., and each of them went on rounds in vehicle allotted to them by the 5th respondent party and went to each booth.

/With all such weapons, they entered the booth, attacked th