1993 (5) TMI 196 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the requisition of State Bank of India employees for election duty.
2. Interpretation of "local authority" under Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
3. Authority of the District Election Officer to appoint Presiding Officers and Polling Officers under Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
4. Constitutional provisions regarding the requisition of services for election duties.
5. Validity of the instructions issued by the Election Commission concerning the requisition of bank employees for election duties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Requisition of State Bank of India Employees for Election Duty:
The petitioners challenged the requisition of State Bank of India (SBI) employees for election duty, arguing that no constitutional provision or law authorizes the District Election Officer to requisition the services of bank employees for election duty. The respondents contended that the Representation of People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 26 and 159, authorized such requisition. The court held that SBI employees are not considered "local authority" employees under Section 159 of the Act, and thus their services cannot be requisitioned for election duties.

2. Interpretation of "Local Authority" under Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951:
The court examined whether the State Bank of India qualifies as a "local authority" under Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The term "local authority" is defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and includes municipal committees, district boards, and bodies of port commissioners. The court concluded that SBI does not meet this definition, as it is a statutory corporation engaged in banking business and does not possess the attributes of a local authority, such as control over a municipal or local fund.

3. Authority of the District Election Officer to Appoint Presiding Officers and Polling Officers under Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951:
The court analyzed the scope of Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which allows the District Election Officer to appoint Presiding Officers and Polling Officers. The court held that this power is limited to appointing individuals whose services can be requisitioned under Article 324(6) of the Constitution and Section 159 of the Act, meaning employees of the Central or State Government and local authorities. The court rejected the argument that the District Election Officer has the authority to appoint any person, including private individuals, as Presiding or Polling Officers.

4. Constitutional Provisions Regarding the Requisition of Services for Election Duties:
Article 324(6) of the Constitution mandates that the President or the Governor, upon request from the Election Commission, must make available necessary staff for election duties. The court emphasized that this provision applies to employees of the Central or State Government and local authorities, not to employees of statutory corporations like SBI. The court also noted that the power to impose compulsory service for public purposes under Article 23(2) of the Constitution is vested in the State and not in the District Election Officer.

5. Validity of the Instructions Issued by the Election Commission Concerning the Requisition of Bank Employees for Election Duties:
The court examined the instructions issued by the Election Commission, which included requisitioning employees from statutory bodies and public sector undertakings for election duties. The court held that these instructions are inconsistent with the constitutional provisions and the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court emphasized that the Election Commission's instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that the power to requisition services for election duties is limited to employees of the Central or State Government and local authorities.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the letters appointing SBI employees as Presiding Officers and Polling Officers and directed the respondents not to requisition the services of SBI employees for election work under Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court held that the District Election Officer does not have the authority to requisition the services of SBI employees, as they are not considered employees of a "local authority" under the Act.