Back
High Court Rings Alarm: 'Urgent Works or Court Chaos' Amid Election Code Freeze
In a swift intervention highlighting the clash between electoral safeguards and judicial necessities, the has directed the to urgently process exemptions for critical infrastructure upgrades in the High Court and subordinate courts. The of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued in a filed by the High Court itself through its Registrar General, pushing back against rigid enforcement of the ahead of state assembly polls.
The case, v. & Ors. (WP(C) No. 14202/2026), underscores how election protocols can inadvertently hobble constitutional institutions, especially with the court's summer vacation looming from .
From Urgent Plea to Belated Reply: The Timeline of Tension
The saga began on , when the Registrar General wrote to the , Kerala, seeking MCC exemptions for essential civil, electrical, and electronics works confined to internal High Court premises. These non-electorally linked projects—fully sanctioned and urgent—were slated for execution during the upcoming vacation to minimize disruptions.
However, the reply arrived only on
, insisting the proposal be routed through a state-constituted Screening Committee for
(ECI) clearance. This delay, the court noted, came
"perilously close to the summer vacation,"
rendering timely execution nearly impossible. News reports from the time echoed the High Court's frustration, with the Registrar General arguing that procedural hurdles risked shifting works to working days, inconveniencing litigants, lawyers, and staff while impairing justice delivery.
The respondents included the ECI, , , and various departmental heads like the Principal Secretary (General Administration) and Chief Engineer (Buildings), .
Petitioner's Push: 'Essential, Not Electoral'
The High Court, represented by counsel , contended that the works were purely infrastructural, involving no policy decisions, public announcements, or financial outlays with electoral implications. Key arguments included:
- Procedural Delay : Details on the Screening Committee were not shared promptly, stalling multi-stage processes like tendering and mobilization.
- Practical Peril : Post-vacation execution would disrupt proceedings, defeating MCC's intent.
- Constitutional Priority : Rigid MCC application interferes with a constitutional court's functioning.
The plea sought a stay on routing through the Committee and provisional clearance to commence works immediately.
Respondents' Stand: MCC Clauses Hold Firm
ECI's Senior Standing Counsel invoked MCC instructions, particularly Clause 'C' under Serial No. 17 and Clause 5(1) on welfare schemes, barring new works post-MCC even if orders predate it. The State Government Pleader highlighted Clause 15, allowing ongoing works only if fully funded, sanctioned, tendered, and contractually bound pre-MCC—otherwise needing ECI nod via the Screening Committee.
Yet, the Bench acknowledged the High Court's point: mechanical enforcement overlooks judicial urgency.
Bench's Balancing Act: Urgency Trumps Delay
The court dissected MCC clauses but prioritized context. No precedents were directly cited, but the reasoning emphasized MCC's object—not to paralyze essential services. It noted the
's tardy response and the "urgent and essential" nature of works, warning that inaction would
"completely disrupt the functioning of the Court."
Drawing on government orders like G.O.(Rt) 1331/2026/GAD and Circular Cdn.1/17/2026/GAD, the Bench mandated expedition without bypassing checks entirely.
Key Observations
"There cannot be any doubt that the communication dated 21 March 2026 was not immediately attended to by theand that the communication was received belatedly and perilously close to the summer vacation. The works are urgent and essential."
"Unless the works commence immediately, it would completely disrupt the functioning of the Court."
"The application of the Model Code of Conduct to such essential judicial infrastructure works, in a rigid and mechanical manner, is likely to defeat the very object of the MCC and results in unwarranted interference with the functioning of a constitutional institution."
Fast-Track Directive: Proceed with Haste, Report by Friday
The court declined immediate provisional clearance but ordered: - to instantly forward the March 21 letter to the Screening Committee. - Completion of the full process per relevant G.O. and circulars, with a report filed by . - Respondent No. 6 ( Secretary) to coordinate with ECI, furnishing data swiftly.
The matter stands adjourned to April 10, ensuring works can align with vacation start. This interim relief balances electoral integrity with judicial imperatives, potentially setting a template for future MCC exemptions in critical public service domains. For now, Kerala's courts breathe easier, one expedited approval at a time.
Case listed on . Counsel: (Petitioner); (R1-R2), , SGP (R3-R7).
