1988 (1) TMI 348 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it is appropriate for the High Court to interfere with an election process at an intermediate stage after the commencement of the election process and before the declaration of the result of the election held for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the office of the Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that there was an error in the matter of allotment of symbols to the candidates contesting at such election? Held that - Appeal allowed. The parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the Errata Notification allotting the symbol hand to the appellant by its judgment under appeal. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed in the High Court. The Returning officer shall proceed with the election in accordance with law from the stage at which it was interrupted by the order of the High Court

Issues Involved:
1. Appropriateness of High Court's interference in the election process at an intermediate stage.
2. Validity of the Errata Notification issued by the Returning Officer regarding symbol allocation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appropriateness of High Court's interference in the election process at an intermediate stage:
The primary question was whether the High Court should interfere with the election process after it has commenced but before the results are declared. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle from N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, which states that "elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over." This principle aims to prevent undue delays and interruptions in the election process. The Court further emphasized that "Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India had the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to the matters arising between the commencement of the polling and the final selection." Therefore, the Court concluded that the High Court should not have interfered at an intermediate stage, and the proper remedy for any election dispute should be an election petition post-election.

2. Validity of the Errata Notification issued by the Returning Officer regarding symbol allocation:
The dispute arose from the allocation of the 'hand' symbol to the appellant by an Errata Notification issued by the Returning Officer after conflicting claims were made by two candidates, each claiming to be the official candidate of the Indian National Congress (I). The Returning Officer initially assigned different symbols ('glass tumbler' and 'fish') to the appellant and respondent No. 6, respectively. However, upon receiving a clarification from the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress (I) Committee, the Returning Officer issued an Errata Notification assigning the 'hand' symbol to the appellant. The High Court quashed this Errata Notification, considering it an abuse of power and undue interference in the election process. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's intervention was inappropriate. The Court noted that the "alternative remedy of an election petition is not less convenient, beneficial, and effectual." The Supreme Court held that any mistakes by the Returning Officer or the election authority in symbol allocation could be addressed through an election petition, as provided under the rules framed under section 178(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. The Court concluded that "the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the Errata Notification."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition, directing the Returning Officer to proceed with the election in accordance with law from the stage at which it was interrupted by the High Court's order. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the principle that election disputes should be resolved through election petitions post-election rather than through judicial intervention at intermediate stages.

← Previous Next →