1977 (12) TMI 138 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there may not be sufficient justification to negative the existence of any implied duty on the part of the Commission at that stage to hear any party before taking its decision to order or not to order a report? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Being not altogether certain of all the facts and circumstances that may be made available in the appropriate forum it may be a premature exercise by this Court even to lay down guidelines when there is no hide-bo and formula of rules of natural justice to operate in all cases and at all times when a decision has to be made. Justice and fair play have often to be harmonised with exigencies of situations in the light of accumulated totality of circumstances in a given case having regard to the question of prejudice not to the mere combatants in an electoral contest but to the real and larger issue of completion of free and fair election with rigorous promptitude. Not being adequately informed of all the facts and circumstances this Court will not make the task of the election court difficult and embarrassing by suggesting guidelines in a rather twilight zone.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 in light of Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
2. Powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.
3. Applicability of natural justice principles to the Election Commission's actions.
4. Validity of the Election Commission's order for re-poll in the entire constituency.
5. Remedy available to the appellant through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 in light of Article 329(b) of the Constitution:
Article 329(b) imposes a "blanket ban on all manner of questions which may have impact on the ultimate result of the election" arising between the notification by the President calling for the election and the declaration of the result by the returning officer. This includes the jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the sole remedy for an aggrieved party is an election petition as provided under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court's jurisdiction is barred during the ongoing process of the election to ensure that elections are concluded promptly without intermediate interruptions by legal proceedings.

2. Powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution:
Article 324 vests the Election Commission with "superintendence, direction and control" of elections, encompassing comprehensive responsibilities to ensure free and fair elections. The Election Commission can act in areas not covered by specific legislation, provided its actions are in conformity with the rule of law and principles of natural justice. The Commission has the authority to cancel and order a re-poll in an entire constituency if necessary to achieve a free and fair election, even though such power is not explicitly detailed in the Representation of the People Act.

3. Applicability of natural justice principles to the Election Commission's actions:
Natural justice, embodying principles like audi alteram partem (right to be heard), applies to the actions of the Election Commission. The Court held that even though the Election Commission must act expeditiously, it should still adhere to principles of fairness. This includes providing affected parties with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, albeit in a flexible and pragmatic manner suited to the exigencies of the situation. The Election Commission's actions are subject to judicial review to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious.

4. Validity of the Election Commission's order for re-poll in the entire constituency:
The Election Commission's order for a re-poll in the entire constituency was challenged on the grounds of being arbitrary and beyond its powers. The Court held that the Commission has the power under Article 324 to order a re-poll if it deems necessary for ensuring a fair election. However, this power must be exercised in accordance with natural justice and the rule of law. The Election Tribunal has the authority to review the validity of such orders and determine whether they were made in good faith and based on objective assessment.

5. Remedy available to the appellant through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The Court clarified that Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides a comprehensive remedy for any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act, including actions by the Election Commission. The Election Tribunal can grant all necessary reliefs, including ordering a re-poll, recount, or declaring the appellant duly elected if the initial poll cancellation is found to be illegal. The appellant's apprehensions about being left without a remedy were unfounded, as the election petition process offers a full opportunity to challenge and rectify any irregularities.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the bar imposed by Article 329(b). It affirmed the Election Commission's broad powers under Article 324, subject to natural justice and judicial review. The Court ensured that the appellant had a comprehensive remedy through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to address any grievances arising from the election process. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →