9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions. 2. Validity of the rejection of nomination papers on technical grounds. 3. Appropriateness of High Court interference before the completion of the election process. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (the Institute) and the Central Council have their offices in Delhi, and the impugned orders were made and communicated from there to the petitioners in Bangalore. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sub-Article (2) of Article 226 allows a High Court to issue writs to any authority even if the seat is outside its jurisdiction, provided the cause of action arises within its territory. The court concluded that since the rejection orders were received in Bangalore, part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, thus affirming its authority to entertain the petitions. 2. Validity of the rejection of nomination papers on technical grounds: The petitioners argued that their nominations were rejected on extremely technical grounds, not for defects of substantial character as required by Regulation No. 67 (10). The court noted that the panel could not reject a nomination paper for a technical defect that is not of a substantial character. The court found that the omission of certain words in the nomination papers was trivial and inconsequential. The nominations were in conformity with the substantial requirements of the law, and the panel's rejection was deemed absurd and egregious. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Limited v. Bank of Bihar, which emphasized that an explanation should harmonize with the main section and not widen its ambit. 3. Appropriateness of High Court interference before the completion of the election process: The respondents argued that the petitioners could challenge the rejection in an election petition after the completion of elections and that intermediate challenges should not disrupt the election process. The court acknowledged the principle that elections should not be interrupted but noted exceptions where the rejection of nomination papers is plainly absurd or egregious. The court referred to the Division Bench ruling in K.M. Muddammallappa v. Election Officer and Revenue Inspector, which allowed for interference in exceptional cases to prevent wasteful expenditure of public time and money. The court concluded that these were fit cases for interference at this stage to prevent unnecessary delays and expenses. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the nomination papers and declared the nominations valid. It directed the Institute to include the petitioners' names in the list of valid nominations and complete the elections based on the existing calendar of events. The court emphasized that this decision was in the interests of all parties and would prevent the potential need for re-elections, thus saving time and resources. The rule was made absolute, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
