Back
, Sitting on Holiday, Protects Kekri Chairman Candidate from Arrest Ahead of Election
In an extraordinary display of judicial accessibility, the convened on a public holiday – Baba Ramdev Jayanti – to hear an urgent petition from Anil Mittal, a candidate for the post of Chairman of the . With the election scheduled to begin at 10:00 AM on , Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand granted , directing the respondents not to take any , including arrest, against Mittal until the next hearing.
Temple of Justice Never Closes
The Court took a firm stand on its duty to function even on holidays when
are at stake.
"The administration of justice cannot be fettered by the concept of holidays, for the cause of justice brooks no delay when the liberty, life and rights of a citizen are at stake,"
Justice Dhand observed.
"The Courts being the
for the protection of the rights of the citizens, cannot shut its eyes or close its doors when a citizen approaches it for redressal of his grievance, even on a holiday."
A Midnight Complaint and Police Deployment
Mittal, who had already been declared a qualified member of the Board and was contesting for Chairman, moved the Court on an urgent basis. According to his counsel, , in the intervening night of September 20 and 21, a ward member named Rajendra Kumar Choudhary lodged a complaint with the , alleging that Mittal was offering to Board members to secure their votes. The complainant reportedly sought Mittal's arrest to disqualify him from the election.
Mittal's counsel further submitted that police officials had been posted outside his residence to apprehend him and prevent him from participating in the election. With the polling window set from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, the petitioner feared that any delay or arrest would effectively him.
State Opposes, Cites Election Law Bar
The , opposed the petition, calling it "highly misconceived and premature." He argued that the was based on mere apprehension, as no copy of any FIR or even the complaint had been placed on record. He relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), which bar courts from interfering with an election process once it has commenced. He also pointed to the High Court's own order in Kuldeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan () reiterating the same principle.
Balancing with
Justice Dhand acknowledged the : once the election schedule is announced, courts must not interfere with the polling process. The Court quoted extensively from
Ponnuswami
, emphasizing that
"all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over."
However, the Court drew a
. While declining to stay or modify the election schedule, it addressed the petitioner's
. Noting that no FIR had been registered as of that morning, but that police were indeed stationed outside Mittal's residence, the Court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution.
"The legal framework provides mechanism to protect an individual from
, ensuring that the power of the State is balanced against the rights of the citizen,"
the Court stated.
"
provides for
and under the ambit of
, any threat to him amounts to violation of the same."
Interim Relief and Next Steps
As an , the Court directed the respondents not to take any against Anil Mittal, including his arrest, until the next date of hearing. The election proceeded as scheduled, with the Returning Officer left free to act on the complaint in accordance with law. The matter has been listed for further hearing on , and the State has been directed to file its reply. The petitioner's counsel was also asked to cure any defects in the petition as pointed out by the office.
The case highlights the judiciary's willingness to uphold even during the sensitive period of an election, while respecting the on interference with the electoral process itself.
