2002 (5) TMI 847 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Power of the Election Commission of India (ECI) u/s 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to de-register political parties.
2. Distinction between 'bundh' and 'hartal' and their constitutional implications.
3. Application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to quasi-judicial orders.

Summary:

1. Power of the Election Commission of India (ECI) u/s 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to de-register political parties:
The Supreme Court examined whether the ECI has the authority to de-register or cancel the registration of a political party u/s 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for calling a hartal by force, intimidation, or coercion, thereby violating the Constitution. The Court concluded that neither the Act nor the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 provides the ECI with express power to de-register a political party for constitutional violations. The ECI acts quasi-judicially when registering political parties, and without express review power, it cannot de-register a party for violating constitutional provisions or undertakings given at registration.

2. Distinction between 'bundh' and 'hartal' and their constitutional implications:
The High Court of Kerala had previously distinguished between 'bundh' and 'hartal', noting that a bundh involves coercion and is unconstitutional as it violates citizens' rights. Despite this, political parties in Kerala continued to call bundhs under the guise of hartals. The High Court declared that enforcing a hartal by force or intimidation is unconstitutional and directed the state authorities to implement measures to prevent such enforcement.

3. Application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to quasi-judicial orders:
The High Court's view that the ECI could de-register political parties by applying Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was found erroneous by the Supreme Court. Section 21 pertains to executive or legislative orders, not quasi-judicial orders. Since the ECI's registration of political parties is a quasi-judicial act, Section 21 does not apply.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside directions (iii) and (iv) of the High Court's judgment. The ECI does not have the power to de-register political parties for constitutional violations under the current legal framework, except in cases of fraud, changes in party constitution against Section 29A(5), or similar grounds where no inquiry is needed. The application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to quasi-judicial orders was also rejected.