2006 (10) TMI 489 - SC - Indian Laws

Delay in process of election to constitute the new Municipal body - Whether Article 243U of the Constitution by which the duration of the Municipality is fixed is mandatory in nature and any violation could be justified? - Powers of the State Election Commission and Election Commission of India - HELD THAT - In our opinion the entire provision in the Constitution was inserted to see that there should not be any delay in the constitution of the new Municipality every five years and in order to avoid the mischief of delaying the process of election and allowing the nominated bodies to continue the provisions have been suitably added to the Constitution. In this direction it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy the same status as the Election Commission of India. In terms of Article 243K and Article 243ZA(1) the same powers are vested in the State Election Commission as the Election Commission of India under Article 324. The words in the former provisions are in pari materia with the latter provision. The words superintendence direction and control as well as conduct of elections have been held in the broadest of terms by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill s case 1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT . Article 243K(3) also recognizes the independent status of the State Election Commission. It states that upon a request made in that behalf the Governor shall make available to the State Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by Clause (1). It is accordingly to be noted that in the matter of the conduct of elections the concerned government shall have to render full assistance and co-operation to the State Election Commission and respect the latter s assessment of the needs in order to ensure that free and fair elections are conducted. Also for the independent and effective functioning of the State Election Commission where it feels that it is not receiving the cooperation of the concerned State Government in discharging its constitutional obligation of holding the elections to the Panchayats or Municipalities within the time mandated in the Constitution it will be open to the State Election Commission to approach the High Courts in the first instance and thereafter the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ directing the concerned State Government to provide all necessary cooperation and assistance to the State Election Commission to enable the latter to fulfill the constitutional mandate. Taking into account these factors and applying the principles of golden rule of interpretation the object and purpose of Article 243U is to be carried out. As the elections to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation have already been held and the new Municipal body constituted no further direction is required in the matter. With these observations we dispose of the appeal with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Article 243U of the Constitution, which mandates the duration of a Municipality, is mandatory in nature.
2. Whether the delay in conducting the elections for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was justified.
3. The role and powers of the State Election Commission in conducting municipal elections.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandatory Nature of Article 243U:
The appellant argued that Article 243U of the Constitution mandates the completion of municipal elections before the expiry of the existing Municipal Corporation's term. Article 243U states that every Municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The Supreme Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate is clear: elections must be completed before the expiry of the five-year term. The Court noted that the provision was introduced to ensure timely elections and prevent the extension of nominated bodies beyond their term.

2. Justification for Delay in Elections:
The State Election Commission contended that the delay was due to the increase in the number of wards and the need for delimitation and revision of electoral rolls, which required consultation with political parties. The Court acknowledged that certain exceptional circumstances, such as natural or man-made calamities, might justify a delay. However, it held that such delays should not become a regular feature. The Court concluded that the State Election Commission must make every effort to complete the elections within the stipulated time, and any revision of electoral rolls should be carried out in a timely manner to avoid violating the mandatory provisions of Article 243U.

3. Role and Powers of the State Election Commission:
The judgment underscored the independent status and significant powers of the State Election Commission, as provided under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that the State Election Commission's powers in conducting municipal elections are equivalent to those of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains. The State Election Commission is responsible for the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Municipalities. The Court emphasized that the State Election Commission must function independently of the State Government and can seek judicial intervention if it does not receive the necessary cooperation from the State Government.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, noting that the elections for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had already been held and the new Municipal body constituted. The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Article 243U, the responsibility of the State Election Commission to conduct timely elections, and the need for State Governments to cooperate fully with the State Election Commission to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates.