Supreme Court of India
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 91
- Decided
- 25 April 1984
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- Y V CHANDRACHUD
Holding
A High Court may not interfere with the Election Commission’s discretionary decision to hold an election, especially when the electoral process is imminent; therefore, the High Court’s ex‑parte order was set aside.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard a special leave appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2182 of 1984) filed by the Election Commission of India against an ex‑parte order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that stayed the election programme for a by‑election in the Taoru Assembly constituency. The High Court had intervened despite the imminent election schedule and the Commission’s discretion under the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court examined whether a High Court could interfere with the Commission’s decision, especially when the State of Haryana claimed law‑and‑order concerns. Relying on the principle that the imminence of an electoral process demands great judicial restraint and that the Commission’s discretion is paramount, the Court held that the High Court’s order was improper. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, confirmed its own interim order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The propriety of the High Court granting an ex‑parte interim order staying the election programme when the election process was imminent.
- Whether the Election Commission’s discretion under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (sections 30, 56, 150) can be overridden by a High Court.
- The extent to which the State’s assessment of law‑and‑order conditions can affect the Commission’s decision.
- The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain a special leave petition in this context.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 144
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 329(b)
- Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 150, s. 30, s. 56
Subjects
Election Commissionby‑electionex‑parte orderRepresentation of People Actjudicial restraintlaw and orderspecial leave petitionelectoral process
Judgment
,•
·A ELECTION 'c o¥MISSlON OF IN'DlA
: v.
STATE OF HARYANA
·. April 25, 1984
[Y.V. CANDRACHUD;C.J., V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK,
D.P. MAD<?N AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] .
·• • Practice & Proctdure-PaufiiJr of E;c.parte order3; by tlte' Courll m 3<>11ghi
' I 'lor by tlte parties ..-htn they give prior Intimation of the preposed proc..d/110! to thi
opposit~ side without much lnconvellience or prejudice d1sappruv tel.
'
.i
I
Cotulilitlio•r o(lndia 1950 Article i36:_lntcr[er~nce by the Suprtmt CoMrl
c against an ad interim order poS1td hy the High Court. . · .
to fill i11the v.1c.tncy ari• iog from tbo setting aside or the elociioo of
tbc returned candidate from the 59· Taoru ·Assembly Constituency ilt
Jiaryaoa, by the Supremo Court, the Rppellaot'Commission sent 'a mcssap
and programme on April 6, 19 84 to the Chief Elccloral Officer for tbe State
of Haryana. Accordin1 to that ptogr3mrne, tho notification under section
D 150 of the Rcpre<eotauon of tho People Act.,19Sl ,was'to be issued on
April 18, 1984, the last date for filing nomination\ was AprillS, 1984 while
the date .cfpoll wao llf,,y 20, 1984 The Election Commission !bed an
identical programme for filling 23 other v~cau~ics irt ihe logi.slnuvo asscm·
,,
J ' blies of Aodhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Wost Bcng~l. Oa April 7, 198~,
I I he Election Commission was requested by tho Haryana Government. to
~ •.
! ·· E·
hold tho proposed by·el<ction ulor.gwith the gcnero1l elections to the Lok
I ·sabb~, duo later In tbe x.ear. On .Aprll I 1, 1984, tho Chior Secretory wrote
I lett<r to th' Election Ct>111 ni..ioacr roncwina the request to defer the by·
t
election. On April 12, 1984 tho Election Commissiuoer informed tho
Chid Election Officers by n telex mcs•.ago thlt it bod dectd<d to 'adb•:o to
tho· programme or by·elcction\ to ollthc 24 constituencies and copies of
notificatio"' to be published on April IH, 1984 were sent to tho Cbi<f
l
Elcctorul Offi:or, liary•na. A Press out was issued to that effect after·
'' F informin11 Jll the political parties. •
The Chief Sccr~tary, Hary;~na met the Chief Elcctiou Co;,missioner
on .April 14, ln4 and explained to him pcrson~lly why it wu neil:
ndvoaable nor P9SSoble to hold tile by.clcction to tbo Tuuru lt(ll os proP"
by tho .fuller. Oa April 16, 1984, tho Chief Sccrotouy wroto a lettct
G rcl1er3tin1 Jho view or the Guvcrnmont to th~ Cbict Elc<:tiuo Commi;;siooorn
On April 17, 1984, the Chief Commissioner replied to tho leiter of APrld
16, 1984 by IDYina thai the Commi~sion hat.! taken tho dc'cisioo to h?
the by. election uftcr tuking tho Punjub situation nod toldna into considerJii~
all r•elora in<ludin& tho fact of non fact that Ibe polil ical . partios wcro ~
1
oppo-.d In the propo""d bydcction. On the santo d:ty tho Govcrn111t11 '
Haoyapa nkd a writ potition irt the Hi¥b Court or Punjab and H>rY~:
and ubl~iocd ao ;x parte orcla llaylua tbc issuance aoJ pubhcatio>n oft
.... .. .
.:~;-:--. ~ · #:~~~:::----::--~·. -.- .·
- ~ ---~- -
-· · -- :;)
.. .
• ·•
0
llLfCTION COMMISSfON P. HARYANA
by the Election Commission undor ss. 30, S6 and ISO or tbe
10t:~1'3 tioo · or tbe Pcoplo Act, 1951. Hence tbc appeal by special
sss
A·
.!
r,
~:
I
R<P r the Courth . '
,,.,-e 0 • • . .~
Aflowios tbe appeal, the Court. ,.
J{ELD : (.Per .Majority)
B
.p;r.ChQJ!drac/rud
. C .J.
. . '
. 1·; 1. The wide!~ prcv.~lcn~ p~acti~c of putices obiaioing ex parte
ll!d<rS when they co.'" g1ve pn~~ mumat~on of tho pr?p~sed proceedings ~ 0
ppositc side, w•lhout much lnconvtDleuca or preJUdice bas often been
:a:rroved by this Court. )Vheo tho public authorilics do so it ia all tho
~orcoptb to disapprobJUon. [5610-E] • . . c .'I
1 : 2. The Oov~rnmeot of Haryana obtained on e~. parte order
rrom the High Court when it could eas1ly have given prior intimation of
· tbe iotend<d procccJings to the Election Commission onndia • . Tbc letter
is >OOstilutiJo>lly identifiable, conveniently ncce>siblc and easily aVJilablc
fD< be1ng contact<d on the most modern systems of communication. Tbc
El«lioo Commission of India, too .rushed to this Court oo the I 8th witbou t D
ioformios the Govcrnm<nt . o( H 1 ryaoa that it propose.s to cbJiknge tbc
•I
order oltbo H1gh Court and to nslc for Sti!Y of tbat order. Tho Govern• ., • l '
II<Ol or HJryana is also identifiable and accesstble with the same amount . .-}
ofc:t~. Were it not f0r tho fact that this matter brooked no delay the
Supreme Court wouhl b*yo hesitated to pass any interim order wit bout the
•PP•IIant givlna prior intimation of lis proposed action to the re-spocdcot. , .
1 ..
[S6!E-G)'- E
l :. 3. D.:spite 1he guideline indicatr<.l by tbo s·uprcme Court io tbc
ll't>t Btn,al poll case, A.K M. Hauan Uz:amon v. Uuion uf lndio., [!982]
2 S.~:C. 21 ~. regurdt~g tlto, passing ·of orders by the High Courts · in · !
acrtlte of tb<ir wdt jurisdiction, the High Court of Punj"b & Harya!l•
for frorD abowing any reluctoncu to interfere with. the programme
or tho proposed elcct.ion, tho High Court h•u only too readily p~ssed the ·
>!
.
I
;
F
. ~1 '""' order which wouhl hav~ had the effect of postponing the ~lectioo. ·. ' ' • • I
IDitfinlle!,. Clnsidering thnt the electi01t process was just round the
corue~, the High Court ought not to have intorfcrcd with it. Tho non- !
~1!1& order passed by it u!Tords no OS$istaoce oo the question wbctbcr
.... ..
I
t~crc ~ccpt!onal drcum~ta::ccs to justify that onlor. iS62A-C]
11
.
i'.
to · t The GovernmcQt a( H~ryaoa is undoubiedly i~ tho ~s{ position ··. l
~
"<e>a lbo 1I tual 1on of law and order io nrcas within Its Juns
• · d'ICIIOD
. 00d I.~ ~'
.I
a.~,•r hs. ~lllrol. But tho uttimuto decision as to wbetbcr it Is possiblo
I
I ' I
"ili''Pt<lacnt to hoiJ tltil clcclions Ill ouy aivcn point of time must re~t· ~ I'
1
•'1a4 ,~~ Elcclion C<Jtnmission. Arbitrariness an<.! nlalQ fiJes .tcs.troy the
I
lor,~ 0 ~ <tncaty or ull order. PJ>><d by public aulbodti"l• It t~ thc.re~ ..'. . ' ..
tf Ia.., t<>l<lrY. I hut on no l.ssuc liku the prc•ent wbi.;h con.:crns 8 situauon
•· G
""lc •od ordcr, 111c Elt.:ctton
• Coanrull.ion
. ' con>~!!<t
must • th 0 ¥i.sws of the
i\ .
:I
· ~in& t"'"nment and all other con.:crn<d bo.Ji.:s of uutboritks before II
lho <onclu~iun that th<"ru b hll objc.:tiou to tbe bold_ing of .ttiC
0
. I
I.. II '
• I
·'
_. "'~
SUPREME COI,JRT REPORTS il9S 4J .' S. .
3 .c.~
A tections a; this poin t of lime. Honce the Et.l~tio.l Com ni .•. . . '
eits decision after be~n.ng
. 10. m1n '•'Onsh••~"'~to
. d t h e pros aq d con~ of tho. whole
I! had the data b~forc it. It c_a nnot be as.sumed th1t it turned a bl~ Ilion,
.to it. Ia !bese Clrcums!ao·: es, II WdS no~ IQ !pe ~ower or tho fligb nd eye
10 decid: whether !he law and order SJtU ll!OO m tho Stale of Puoja;~u·t
Haryaa1 is such as not tow trrJnt or permit !ho holdial or lb~ by.0 1 .aad ·
B. n is procisely in a s! tultJO~
· I''· = · o f tb.J Weu Be 001 ·
1.. t b'IS t h a t ihe rat1o
1
•o•
case wouid apply io its fulf rigor. [S62B·H. 563!\,·D] • nga Pol/
3:1. However, it would be open to the Chief Etectio~ Comrn~;sioner
to review hir decision :u to the exp;d.'ency of bo!din11 the poll 00 th:
notifieJ date. In fdcl, not oaly wo•~l~ Jt b~ o?:n to h1m to recG1 iidor hi!
decision to bold the pnll a\ nollficd, tl IS platoly Ius du!y an J o!lilgatioa 1
c · . ketp the .siruotion under constant scrutiny so as to ad]u\t I be decisio~ 10 th~
. roli!ies of the situation.· All the facts and circurn>tucces, past and. present
whicb !:cor upon the question of the advisability of holding tbe poll on th;
aorified d~te ha~o to be taken into account llnd kept under vigil. That ;, to
coblir.uiog prucess which can only cease afrcr the poll is sbcld. Uotil theo,
the Election Commission has the locus, for ~;ood rcaon<,p to alier its
dc~ision The taw and order situatioa in 1he State, or in any art or it, or
~· D. in a nci_bbouring State, is a c"nsidcr.uion of vital importance for decidiot
''
t ' lbe question of expediency or po;\lbillty of ho'ding an olcclion at anYPJrti·
t'·· cu!ar point or time. If he cunsidera it necessary, he shou~d held further
di<cu<1ioas witb tho Chief Electoral Officer of llar)'UD.I and cotbult, on-:c
! apin, lcad•:rs of the v;•rious political putics ·on the question whether 11 it
fea5ib le to h.>ld the poll o~ rh·' due date. On un imp)rtJnt ism: such"
lb: b<:>!din; of no 'ci>CIIOB, wbic'l is o( grc.t ao:J (IJlmcdute c..>ocern IO tb'
E. eotir: polidcll commu•tily, tb:rc can be no qu!S<ion of any pablic olliml
•·•ll<liog OQ prejtig~, ·an ~pprebea;ion which WJ& fat,tly p~~j,-ctcd in tbe
~r~lc's t•aume~t~. A sense of ~ralisnt, obj<ctivdy and .oo.t·:>. hgnmcn_t •mllll
JDf..,rm tltc deci>IOD or the clccllon Comrnl>llOil <'0 that ts>\JC. [56JD H1
M,ftd, YuJUI$ Sale<m "· Shlr l<ttmar Slmtrl. {1974! 3 s.c.R. 7n@
p .. 743-44; fallowed. . • .
. . .3:2: lndc.c.J, every citiz•n ~r th~
c.lu•ltry who h~ so~e dc~r~c,no;
pol~ucal .n.~rcun,, would have a fair ide:l of the· 11111111\Jn PI Punt£ ana·
'
'' h• Impact on the even flow of life in·tho neighbouring Stuto o(.JhrY ·ill
But ~he circum.tance thd tbc Hl&li Cour1 h;n tho lr;nowlcdgo of a. ~~~~;ill
not JUSt try ~be 6Ubslitutiotl by it of Its owu opiniOII for tb~l of un ~ titutioO·
d~ly appoJOted for a lpecific ptarpoiC by tho law and·,lhu CoUl idc11.
DI!Tercnt pooplu bold dilferent views on public issues, wl)ich arc of~: ;ubliC
dlvcr&<nt. Even I be Judaea. A Judge Is en lit kd lo biJ .view$ o~•tioG
1
~•ues bijl ha caunot proiei:t hi• pemmal view& on tho decisJoD 0 .r 11 q ;rtrio4
Joke tile situation ur 4w and order In a particulmr area at a p~rucul~rai!lll rJ
or 11111' and hold th•t tb¢ Electloa Cotnmluioo I• in error io its oppr
Jlat "tuatloa. {'640 -FJ
It
:(
l'~r '17u!k!car, /. (Co~~tru) :
tb• ttl~' ..
Tho ~A•CI parameters of tbe decision in Haua , •• c~SO 11114
I
~·t
,_;;. . :·· L
.. ..
·~:u:C'fiON COM~!ISSION v. H.\RYANA
551
' • be known· tin the judgme:tl · containing rcHotJs is bo.rn. As 00 A
ra•io C3:~ ~0c .can predict what el!actly will be . decided by the Courl io
0
I •
1odaf 's c:~se when the Judgment eventually comes to be proonounced
f{tJJSOft
013
ke a guess about the colour or shade of the eyes of a child
("'.bo can
. to be bor!l ?~. · But tt
· can bc rcasonably sa1d· th~t
· Hasson's c:aso ·
1
" bicbootIS ye
enjoin tbat .an .ontcnm
' ordcr o f sueb' a tJature can ,never be passed
do~y situation. If that were not ~o. the c_ourt .•would not have said (l)
ID
1
roinence of electoral process IS a factor wbtcb must guide and govern _B
IMt Jllsiog of orders (meuoing thereby that while such order-scan be pas~ed
tbis factor must be nccordcd. d uo const'd eratton
tb• pas · ) an d ( 2) tbat •'more
. roineot such process, the greater C'ught to be the rcluctooce of the H:gb
~urt to co eoytbing or direct unythi~g to t-e done which will po>npone th~t
protcs• inddinitcly:• (\\hich m<ans it mu<t be doo·~ only witb rclu~tance
wbcn eJection' rrc tmmmcnt). In other IH'tds tl·e power must be exercised
tplt i~gly (with rclucraocd particularly when the order would be to postrooo
tbc io,tlllatioo of a, demo:rat ically elected popuhr Government. These
observations were made by the Court io Ha..uon's case in the coat ext or the
~piry or the term t>f legislature as cnvfsiooed by Arr;cle J72 of tbe
I Cqnstitution of Ir.d't a and conslquc:ntial general eicdions for such lcgi~lature · .
} u is evident f•om the dlusioo to ·",mmiornce of elections" sod "indefinite
postponement of elections io legislative todies which arc the ess.!nco of
democratic functions of the Constitution." This rnn•t be so becou<e the
e
kaislaturc would stand di.soh·ed ·on tbc expory of the term, and new legisla·
lure has to be elected. It is in this context (presumably) that a reference is
made to "immioco_cc ofelectioO>". [561D·E-H; ~68A-F] • ·
For n By·o;Oc:ction lika the present one, to fill a single vacancy. t~ero.
ea~ be no Question of "imminence'; or "indifioite postponement of elections"
wh!cb 1\'0Uid Stall the in\totlatioo or a d~mocratical\y elected government. E
It •• nobody'• C11so tb~t tho party position· was such tb:.t the result or the
dectloa to Ibis \acant sent would have tilt(d the majority· one way or other.
No ob!ique motive has even been hinted ar:. The High Court was .therefore
ttot UOJustillcd in procecxling on the assumptl~n that it had such a po.ver.
. [S68P·OJ
t~ Tb.e High Court cannot be fuultcxl for . passio~ tb< impugne~ order F
Cog~t 01 .'t was by on unpre~cdcntcd situation like the Pto!!cnt. rr the High
. to~ had not smnted the order and thb Election Commi~sion h:ld not chosen
~<lr on or be foro April 18 19 84 tho Htgh Court would hove p.:rhaps
· it, as ~hp~~erless to P:t.ss any o;ber order, what;ver bo the ju>tificnttoo for
• Cou o el«:toral-l'roccu" would hav~ actually commenc.:d. Tbo Htijh
ta~:tl was Ptitna.f.,ci<: satisfied that the Election Commission b.ad failed .10
. t:oa~id~~~ a~coun t vital m~ttcrs, nppearcd to have acted on oon·consequenttal .G
ll
Stote ato )ns, nnd had acted nrbitrarity in turning down the request of tho
0
, Court ov•rnmcnt ns also tho Chief Election Officer of Haryan:\. The High
. "'•s o
therefore cotitled to grant stay. [S69A·B] ·
lite c~ho Su~rcmo Cuun in cxcrcis~ of tho jurisdiction und~r~rtic:o 136 -of
~td bStltuttan 0( India ahould 110t interfere )"llh th? ~d·tOtenm order
1!.1 ~11on ~tho Hi&h Court in such n fact situation. Oil tht ~n~ ltaNI t~•
4llt!C!IIi0 ornmission appeared to have been ultugotber ob!JV~ous, h> tIde
. Q · ·n·~ to the lof~ an
aa reaards tho bonnfidc apprch~!lsioo pcrtaour
..
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1984] 3 s.c.R.
I
A security of the National leaders. who might address public ,mec;tings,
the Candidates the cfficers engaged in' election work, and the voters. The.
danger was further aggrevated in the face cf open thre1ts held but to the lives
of the National leaders of different potitical parties. What is more, the Elec.
tion Commission has shown total unawareness dr 1he circumstance that public
meetings :were prohibited under s. 144 of the Cr. P. C. in the conslitutency
· going to the polls. 'On the other ltartd the only conseque;1cc of granting a stay
would bave been to postpone the election programme by a few days in the
. event of the Elect'ion Commi~sion commission not choosin'g to appear ,jn the
Court (to show cause why 1be ad·interim order 'should ·not be made absolute)
on or before April 18, 1984 which.was the scheduled date F.or issuance of.the
notification announcing ·the election progr~mme_ The Election Commission.
could h~ve appeared-bcf,o .e the High Court and got the stay. vacated in ti'me
·instead of approaching this Court by way of the present· appeal by Special
·Leave. The Election Commission could not have failed -to refraise that no
· .~
serious consequence would have flowed from the impugned -order even if s.tay
was vacated, not immediately, but a few cfays ljiter, for, it was only a .·by.
election tO one'siOI!lle seat of DO sigoifican~ which WOUld. not have 'resulted·
in posH>onement ·.of. the installati~n of an elected government. Wor'se come to
worse, the by-ele~tion could not have bben held along with by-elections in
dther states on the!same day'. [569B·G]. ·
D
. More so when the Election Commission has not been able' to show
what possible detriment would h~ve been suffered if the by.election "could not
have been so held on that particular day. How· and by what process of ratio·
cination did · the Election Commission convinced itselfthat free elections
could. be held in a situation where the candidates would consider it hazardous,
to conte.st or to ·indulge. in election propoganda, and even ·voters would be
E afraid to vote, even to this coul t. [569G·H~ 570A]
. " .
It is no doubt true that theoretically the Election Commission can
still postpone the· polling, if it. is so minded. lfut the Court should riot
remain a passilfe spectator in this extraordinary situJ!,tion and leave the·
Nation to the mercy of an individual, however high be bis office, when it i 8
1
.!
evident th3t he has secluded himself in his ivory tower and has shut his eye 8
· to the realitie~ of the ftituatioo and closed his mind to the progrosis of this
mattor. The Court can certainly Sltisfy i.tself whether the Election ComtniS·
: sioner bad kept his eyes, ears and mind open, and whether he was able to·
show that all relevant factors including the consideration as to what advan·
tage was to. be secured as against the risk to b~ faces, entered into h.is
reckoning, If this is nqt shown to have been done, as 'io 1he present case>
G his decision ·is yitiated a'nct the. Court nec!d no~· fe~l helpless. The High
O>urt was therefore fully justified in passing the impU;lDCd order, and ttie
Suj1re~e Gourt should not upture it. [571B·D]
B
CIVIL ~PPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2182 of 1984.
· Appeal by Special leave from the lodgment and Order dated
,
the 17th April, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryape High Court W.P. in
No.- ~il c;>f l984
•
' '.
ELECTION COMMISSION v. HARYANA (Chandrachud, C.J:) 559
. . '
S.S. Ray and Krishnamurthi Swami for the Appellant.
'A
K.G. Bhagat Addl. Sol. General, ·A.K, Sen, H.B. Singh Ad.tocate · ·
of Harayana, A. Subbha Rao, CV. and ltN. Poddar, for Respondent.
General, ·
-.
.
The following Judgments .were delivere<;l ·
CitA?-!DRACHUD, C.J. We had passed an interim order on April
18, suspen4ing the ~peration of the order passed by the.'High Court
of Punjab & ~aryan a, on April 17, 1984. The High Court,' by its '
aforesaid order; bad stayed the issuance and publication Of the ·
notification~ l?Y the Election Commission oflndia undu· sections 30,
.c
56 and ·150 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. We had
' . '
djrected that the special leave petition should be listed befbre us .
the next day for considering whether the interim order should be
confirmed.
On February 28, 1984, this Court gave a judgment in Civil
Appeal No. 5501 of 1983, setting a~ide the election of the returned
candidate from the 59-Taoru Assembly· Constituency in H~ryana.
As a resplt 'of that judgment, a vacancy arosejn the. L~gislative
Assembly 9f the State of Haryana from that Constituency. On April
6, .1984, the Election Commission of India sent a message to the Chief E
Secretary, Haryana, who is the Chief Electoral Officer for the State
of Haryana, informing him that the Conimissio:n had fixed a certain
~programme for hoiding the by-election to the Taoru Constituency.
. According to that programme, the notification under section I 50 of
the Representation of t~e .Peopie Act, 1951., ·was to be issued on
Apri118, 1984, the last date for filing nominations is April 25,1984, .F
while the date of poll is May 20, 1984. The Election Commission
fixed an identical programme for filling 23 other vacancies-in the
legislative assemblies of Andhra ·P.radesh, Karnahlka' and 'fest
· Bengal.
G
On April 7, 1984, tb~ Election Commission receiv~ a telex
message from the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana; convey-
ing the request of the Haryana Government that the proposed' by-
election should be 'held along witft the general elections to the Lok
Sa~hil which aredue later this year. 0~ April~ 11, 1984, the Chief . .t.·
Secretary wrote a letter to the Chief Election Commission~r rc;new- q
in.g the aforesaid request
..
for two reasons
. .· '·
;.
•
560 SUPREME COtmT .REPORTS . (1984J 3 S.G.R· .
(1) The next general e'ection to the Ha~yana,Vidhan Sabha
.. Is~due in May, 1~87 ~nd ·since. the Taoru vacancy had
occurred ucently on February 28, J984', there was no
imm~didate n_ecessity. to fill it ; and ·
(2) 'deferriRg the by-~lection would· save time,' labour and
.. B · expense .
On April 12, 1984, the Election Commission informed the
·Chief Elec~oral Officers by a telex . m~ssage -that it bad decided to
adhere to the programme of by-election to 24 vacancies in their
respective jurisdictions. The telex message mentioned specificalJy
c that the Commi~sion had :takc:n into consideration the replies receiv·
· ed by it from various State Government and their Chief Electoral
'pfficers on the question of holding the elections as prop_osed. On
the same date. · i.e. April 12, 1984 copies of notifications be to
~ published on Aprill8, 1984 in ,the Haryana · Gazette' were sent to
· the Chief Electoral Officer of Haryana. By a separate communica-
.tiot~ of-the .same dater·' the- Commission informed -all ·the ·politicar'
parties about the programme fixed by it for holdin:g the by-elections.
A press note was also issued to the same effect· on the same dato.
The Chief Secretary, Haryana, me~ the Chief Election Com-
missioner on April 14 ~nd e_xplained to him' perso~ally why it was
:E neither advisable nor possible to hold the by-election to the Taoru
· seat as proposed by the tatte.r:. On Aprill6, the Chief Secretary
wrot-e a Jetter to· the Chief Election Commissioner reiter~ting the
of
view his Government. He added in that le~ter tbat it would not
., be possible to hold the election during the proposed period because,
.the neighbouring_ State of Punjab was going through · a · s.erious
problem of law and order, that there ":was a dispute regarding
territorial a'dj"ustment and division of waters between the State of
. Haryana and the Akati )>arty in _Punja~, that the said dispute was
u'ed by the Akali Party for · stepping up terrm;ist activities, tha't the
terrorists had attacked per~ons occupying high .public offices, that
-. c there was a s erious threat io the· lives of many impoitimt persons in
flaryiuia, ·that public meetings had been \>anned by the District Magis- .
t1ate 1mdede:ction 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the
·eiti;Jation in .the State was such that· it would not be possible to hold ·. _--~
public me·etings for ~Jection purposes. for a few months: On April ·
-II 17, the Chief Election Commissioner replied to the Chief Secretary's ·. ~.
letter. of April 16 by ~aying that the Commission hl!d taken the
decyision to hold the by·electiop ~ft~r 1aking.into consi~eratio~ alt
' ' I • ' ' • . • • l ', • • .. . •
--
.
. ELECTION COMMI~ON vr HARYANA (Chandrachud, C.J.) 561
'
factqrs, that it was not clear how the Gonstituency of Taor'u in ' A
.Gurgaon, which is about 35 kilometers from Delhi, aQd which is
quite far away from Punjab· would have any fall·out •o(the Punjab.
sifuation and that the political parties who were duly informed of
'
the proposed election programme had not.opposed the \tolding of
by .election at this point of time.· On the same date that. the- Chief
' ,. Election Commission~r wrote the aforesaid letter; the Government ·~
of Haryana filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and
· Harya:na and obtained an ex-parte order, which is impugned in this.
special leave petition.
We passed the interim order on April 18 after hea.ring· a fairly
long and exhaustive argument from Shri Siddhartha Shankar Ray
who appeared on behalf of the appellant, the Election Commission or
India, and the learned Additional Solicitor Gen·eral who·appeared on
•
behalf of_ res'pondent, the. 'State of Haryana' We heard further argu-
. ments of the parties on the 19th, Shrj Asoke Sen appearing. for the
.. re$pondent. Since th~ matter raises questions of general public
: , jmportance. we grant special leave to appe'al to the petitioner. · ·
We often express our disapproval of the widely prevalent
! ' practice of parties obtaining. ex parte orders when th~y can give priot
intimation of the proposeq proceedings to the opposite side. without
.· much incO'ltvenience or prejudice. When the public authoiities do
' : ·so, it is aU the more open to disapprobation.: But here, the parties E·
', '· bave taken a tooth for a tooth ..'The Government of Haryana
' · obt~ned an ex parte order fro in the High Court when it could easily
'have been given prior intimation of the intended proceeding to the
Election.Coimhission of India. The latter is constitutionaliy identifi 4
·able. conven}efitly.accessible and easily available for being contacted.
., o'n- the most mo<lern systems of commlJnication. The Election
Commission oflndia, too, rushed to this Court ori the 18th without '
informing the Government of Haryana that it proposes to challenge
. the order of the HigH Court and to ask for stay of that order. The
·Government of Haryana is also. identifiable ·and accessible with the
sa}Ile amount of case: We do Iiope · thatthe smaller litiga{!.ts will
not form the belief that the bigger ones can get away with such
'lapses. Were it not for the fact that this matter brooked no· delay,
we woul.d have hesitated to pass any interim ruder without the
appellant giving prior intimation of its proposed action to the
~~oode~.
~· · ·
- As stated earlier notifications setting the election process .in n
motion were to be issued <;>n Aprill ~; One day bef<;>re that, the State
t 562 SUPREME COURT R.EOORTS
..
[1984}3 S.C.R..
Governm~nt approached the Hjgh Court in a hurry, asking it stay to
' the election prby.ess, which the Hign Court;bas done. This Court
held in the West Bengal poll case, 'A..K. M. Hassan Uzzaman ·v. Union
of fndra,(l) that the _imminence qfthe electoral process is an important
·factor ~hich must guide and govern.;the passing of orders in the
. exer.cise of the H~gh Court~s writ ju~isdiction ahd that, the .more
B imminent such process, the greater ought to be th~ r'eluctance of the
High Court to take any step which wiU result · in the postponement
of the elections. We regret to find that far from showing any relu·c~
ta!lce t9 interfere with the programme of t,he propos.ed election, the
High Court Jlas only too readily passed the interim order ·which
would have had the effect of postponing the election indefinitely..
0 Considering that the election process was j1;1st round the corner, the
High Court ought not to have interfered with it. The non~speaking
order fassed. by it 'affords no assitance on the questio~ whether there
were exceptional circumstances t~ justify that order.· .
.... 0 . The fact that the ~lection proeess was imminent is only one
· reason' for our saying that the Higl) Court should have refused its
,Ftssistance in the matter. . The other reason for the view which w•
are taking is provided by the very nature of the controversy wlilch.
is involved herein. ·The difference between the. Govern.inent of
Haryana and -the Chief Election <iomniission centre's round the
E que~tion as·to whether the position of law and order in. the State of
Haryana is such as to make it inexpedient· or undesirable to hold
. the proposed by·election at this point of time. The Government of
Haryana is undoubtedly in the best position to assess the situatioQ
of lawand order in areas within its jurisdiction and under its coqtrol.
But the ultimate decision as to whether it is possible and expedient
to
hold the elections at any given point of time must rest with the
· Election Commission. It is not suggested that the Election Commis~
. sion can exerCise its discretion in an ·arbitrary or mala fide manner..
. Arbitrariness and mala .fide destory the validity and efficacy of all
· orders passe~ by public authorities. It is therefore necessary that on
an issue like the present, which· concerns a situation ofJaw and
G
order; the Election C.ommisfiOn fl{USt consider the vi~ws of the State
Government and all other concerned bodies or authorities befor•
~oming to the conclusion that' there is flo objection to the holdina
of the elections at this point of time. On this aspect of the matter,
R · the correspondence between the Chief Secretary of Haryana and tbeo
ChieF Election Commissioner shows tbat the l~tter had taken all th~
(1) (t982l2 s.c.c. 218,.
'ELECTION COMMissioN v. HARYANA (Chandrachud, C.J.) 563
relevant facts and . circumstances into account while taking the·
A
deCision to hold the by-election to the Taoru Con~tituency 'in accro-
-da~ce with the proposed progr~mme. The situation of law and order
•j~ Punjab and, -to some extent, in Ifaryana is a fact so notorious
. that it would be naive to hold that the Election Cqmmission. is not
aware of it. Apart from the means to the knowledge of the situation
· ' ~ ·<if law and order in Punjab and : Haryana, which the Election Com- B
mission would have, the Chief Secretary of Haryana had personally
apprised . the Chief Election Commissioner as to ·why the State .
·novemment was of the view that the ·elections _shol!ld -be· postponed
until the Parliamentary elections. We see no doubt that the Election
'Commission came to its decision after bearing in mind tha pros and
. - cons of the whole situation. It had the data before it•. It cannot •
·be as~umed that it turned a blind .eye to it. In these circumstances,
••
; ..it whs· not in the power of the High Court to decide whether the
-..._ -·- Jaw and.order situation in the ·State of Punjab and Haryana is such
:as not to warrant or permit ·the holding of the· by-elction. lt is
· _precisely in a sit)lation like this that the ratio of the West Bengal ·Poll
in
~ ..COSe W<?Uid apply its full rigor._: .
. ·We _must add. that "it . would be . open to the Chief Election
', Co~tnissioner, as held in .Mohd. Yunus v. Shiv Kumar· Shastri,(l? to
:·~ -review his decision as to the expediency of holding the poll on the
·- \ ·,:'htrfified date. In fact, not only.woulq it'be open to i)iUl to reconside-r·
~, :.·his decision to hold the .poll as notified, it is plainly his duty· and
·.. · obligation to keep the situation under con:s tant scrutiny so as to
·;. adjust·tbc decision to the realities of the situation. All the facts
· and circumstances; past and present, which bear upon the question
· of the advisabiiity 'of holding the poll on the notified date have to
·F
be taken. ittto account and kept •under vigil. That ts.. a oontimJing
process which can only cease after the poll is held. ·Until then, the
Election Com~ission has the . locus, for good reasons, to alter its
-decision: The Jaw and order situation in the State, ()r in any part
of it, or in a neighbouring State, is. a consideration of vital impor-
tance for deciding the question of ex}?ediency or possibility of hold- G
ipg an election at- any parti~ular poin~ of time. W.e are confident
that the Chief Election Commissioner, who is vested with important
duties and obligations by the Constitution, -will discharge those ·
. ;:...., .- duties and obligations with _a high sense of responsibility, ·worthy of
the high office which he holds. If he' considers it necessary, he H
_. {1) . [1974) 3 S.C.R. 7~8, 74~-~44.·
' ..
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1984] 3 s.c.tt.
should hold further discussions with the Chief Electi(m Officer of .
Haryana and consult, once again, leaders of the various political
parties on. the questioQ whether it is feasit?le to hold the poll on
~}le due date .. · On as _important issue such as : the hoJding of an
election, which is of great and immediate concern of the entire
political community;'there. can be no question of any public ~ffici~l
8
standing on pre.stige. an apprehension which was faintly projected in i
tlie State's ·arguments. A sense of realism, objeCtivity and iton- '·
alignmen~ must inform the de-cision of the Election Commission on
. that issue. ·
. It was urged that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
c would have a fair and clear. understanding of the· happenings in
Punjab and their respercussions in Haryana which would justify its
interference -with the decision of. the Election Commission to hold 'rl!'·
the by-election vow. Tlie first part ·o f this argument need. not be · -
D
disputed and 'may even be .. accepted as correct.- Indeed, every
citizen of this country who has .some
.
would have a fair idea of:. the situation
- in
degree of political awaren·ess
.
Punjab and its impact on
.
the e:\ren flow .in the neighbouring State of Raryana. ·But the second·
part oJ the argument is untenable. The circumstan~e that the High
· Court has 'knowledg~ of a fact will not justify the substit~tion .by it
of its own opinion for that of an authority duly appointed for a·
specific purpose by the law· and the Constitution. Diffe~ent pepplc f
hold different views on public issues, · which ,.are often -~idely
· divergent. ·Even the judges. A Judge is entitled to his views on public
. issues but the question :is whettier he can project his personal views
-on the decision of a question like the situation of f'aw and orde~ in
il particqlar area at a particular periodiof time bold that the Election
F Commissi~n is'in error in 'its appraisal of that sit'l!a~ion. We SUppOse
not.
• For these: reasons, we confirm the interim order which was
passed by us on April 18; allow this appeal and set aside the High
·Court's order of-April 17. Unless otherwise directed by the Chief _
6 Electi~n Commissioner, the election programme will have ·to go .•
through as already notified.
There. will be no order as to costs.
H
THAKKAR, J. Holding of a by-election to fill even a single
in
vacancy at the earliest date is an extremely desirable end a demo-
~r~tic framewo~k. Even so if .such circumstances exist, and a
ELEC!ION COMMISSION v. HARYANA (T.hakkar, J.) 56$
reasonable progrosis can be .Ponafide made, that holding,the by-
election fDr filllng Up that vacancy, is fraught with grave danger, !lOt
only to the lives of election ·officers, · ~andidates as also political
leaders addressing election meetings, as also of voters, and poses a
grave danger which al~ogethei outweighs the advantage of hold~ng
the· ekction along . wit]l the by-elections in other States·, should the
matter not engage very serious attention of the Election Com~ B.
• t mission ? Not even when it is shown that with regard to the sensi-
tive and explosive ~ituation it was likely to worsen a situation which·
was already worse? More is when all that was to be gained by hold-
ing 'the by-election as-propos-ed was to be able to hold it alqng with
other by-elections on the same day as in other States which bad by
itself no significance or virtue. And if the El~ction Coll)mission 0
without d~e deliberntion surn,marily turns down the request to defer
.the ele«ti()n programme for that by~election everi by a few days in
such circumstances, can .the Higl: Court be faulted for passing an.
ap-interim order, which has the ~:esult of po~tponing· the election,
not for an indefinite period, but for a few days ~ill the parties are
heard ? Is the order passed QY the Higli Cq.urt in such circumstances D
, so gross that instead of' allowing the High Court to confirm it o~
vacate it, upon· the other side showing cause, this Court should
invoke the jurisdic-tion under Article 1.36 of the: -~onstitution of
India tt;>_ set it aside? More particularly when the ·consequence would .
be no more serious than .this, namely, that the by-election cannot be.
held (there is no virtu~ in doing so} on th~ same day . along with
otper by-~lections. ·
T!At the,High Court has 'the power to issue a direction or
order which has the effect of post~oning an election if the situation
so demands ~ould appear. to be the law declared· by a five-judge _,
Constitution Bench presided over by the learned Chief J4stice who ..
p1:esides over this Benc:h · as well. In A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and
oth~rs v. Union of India and others and Lakshmi Charan Sen- and
oiher~· v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others<1> the concJusions are
recorded in the operative order dated March 30, 1982, reading as
under: · G
. .
, "L The transferred case and the appeals connected
with it raise important que~tions which require .a careful and
dispassionate considerations. The hearing of these matters was ..
conCluded four days ago, on Friday, the 2§th. Since the judg-
-r 'ment will hrke. some time to prepare, we ·propose, by . this
(1) [1982)2 s.c.c. 218 •.
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 s.c:tt.
·Order, to state our conciusions on some of the points involved
in controversy : ·
(1) The High Court acted within its jurisdiction
. in entertaining the writ petit-ion and in issuing a rule nisi,
uponit, since the petition questioned the vires of the
in
laws of eleclion. But, with rc;!spect, it was not justified
i •
~assing the interim orders ·dated February 12 and 19, ·
1982 and in confirming those orders by its judgment
dated February 25, 1982. Firstly, the High Court had no
m~te~ial before it to warrant the passing of those orders.·.
c The allegations in the writ petition are . of a vague and
gene.t:al nature, on the basis of which no relief could be
granted. Secondly, though the High Court did not lack
the jurisdiction to entert~in the writ petition and to is~ue
, appropriate directions. therein, no High Court in the
exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Consti·
.D
tutio,n should pass' any orders, interim or otherwise~
which has the tendency or effect of postponing an · elec-
tion, which is reasonably iinminent and in relation to
which its writ jurisdiction is invoked. The immin~nce of ,
the electoral process is a factor which must guide and
I govern the passing of orders in the ·exercise of the High
Court's writ jurisdiction. ·The more imminent such pro~
. c.ess, the greater ought to be the reluctance of the _High •
·- Court to do anything, or direct anything t~ be dene;
which will postpone ·that process indefinitely by creating
a situation in which, the.Government of a State cannot
be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. India is an _oasis of democra·cy, a fact of
contemporary history which demands the courts the use
of wise statesmanship in the. exercise of their extraordi-
nary powers under the Constitution. The Hi~ Courts
must observe a self-imposed limitation ·on their power to
G act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or give
. directions which will inevitably result in an indefinite
postponement of elections to legislative hodies which are
• /' the very essence of the democratic foundation and func·
tioning of our constitution. The limitation ought to be
.'H observed irrespective of the fact whether the-preparation -{-
• add publicati6n of electoral rolls are a part of the process .
of 'election' within the meaning ofArti9le 329 (b) of the
.... , . -
J!LECtiON COMMISSION •. IIARYANA (Thakkar, J.) . 561 .
. Co~stitution. We wiU pronounce upon that question later
in our judg~lcnt. A.
(2) X X X X
(3) X .X .x X
· • 2. For thcs~ reasons a~d those . which we ~ill give in
our judgment later, w~ dismiss the writ petition filed in t~e B
Calcutta Jligh Court whtch w:ls transferred fur disposal to
this Court. All orders, including interim orders, passed by the . j
Calcutta High Court are hereby set asid.:. Civil Appeals 739
to 742 of 1982 will stand disposed ·of in the light ·of the dis-· ·
·.1
of
missal the writ petition, out of whi~h they arise..
a I
: 3. X X X X
4. X x X X
I
Do~s Ha~san's case ;,join that no such interim order ~an ever be j
~d by the High Court ?
The relevant c~tract from the conclusion. recorded in Hassan's.
'
...
I
case has been reproduced hereinabove. Of course, the e:tact para- .•·.: . .
IICiers of the decision and the true ratio cannot be known till the
judgment containing reasona is born. As on today no.one can pre-
dict what · eJ(actly will' be decided by th~ Court in Hassan's case· E
• whrn the judgment eventually comes to be· pronounced (who can
I ~ale a guess about the colour pf shad.: ·o f the eyes of a chnd which
·.~ . '~
' .'}
~
: a Yet to be born ?) • But it can b~ reasonably said th.lt the following:
extract.(') • ·
. .. . . ' .. ,. . . . •!.! .;
• I
. "The imminence of the clectornl process is a factor '·
Wh•ch, must guide and govern the passing of orders in tll.e '
. excrci;c of the i l•gh Court's writ jurisdiction. The more immi-
) tb.nent such
. procc~s.. t 11c grc.!lcr ought to be the ·rductauce o f
1
· • wlc' 11&h Court to do anytuing, or dirc:c( anything to be done,
11
,j/'c
. Wt.ll postpone · t!Jat procc:;s indefinitely by creating a (·I .
u.~hou ID which, the Gov.:rnmcnt of .a Stal.: cannot be G.
earned .· .
tut.. on tn ·accordance witu the provisions of the ·constt-
ton...• · . :
'lrarra · · . ·
nt, the · · · . . · · · ·
Ord,1 or Vtcw that Jlussu11 •3 case docs not enJOin that an JnteFim
. auct, a nature can n~vcr be· passed in any situation. If that . H
. ~
2J 2 s.c.c. 219.
..
'
;
!
I
..
$68 • · SUPRE!ol!l:cou·R T REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R, ·
..
' were not ;o, the ·court would not jiave said (I) that imminence ·of
.A 'electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern the passing
of orders (meaning thereby that while such orders can be passed this
'factor must be ·accorded due consideration) and (2) that ~·more
imminent such process, the· greater ought to be·the reluctance of the
'High.Court to do anything or direct anything to be done which will
postpone the process indefinitely" (which means it must be done
i
B
{· . only with reluctance when elections are imminent.) The aforesaid-
j statement of law made in the contc;~:.t of "general election's" does
; not warrant the view" that Hassan's case enjoins that an election pro~ '
gramme cannot be postponed even for a few d ays even in the case
! ..
of a by-election, whatever be the situation, and whatever be the
c circumstances, in which the Hi~h Court is called upon to exercise
its jurisdiction. It is therefore not unreasonable to pro1=eed on the
premise that even according to Hassan's case the Court ha~ the
power to issue : an interim order which has the e[.:ct of postponing
no election but it· ·must be exercised sparingly (with reluctance)
particularly when the result of the order would be to postpone the
·installation of a · democratically etcctcd popular government. The
portion extracted from the operative order in Hassan's case:
brought ioto focus a short while ago which adverts to ..imminence
of elections" and to "directions which will inevitably result in
indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies wbich are
the very essence of the democr.atic functions of our Constitution"
E . leaves no room for doubt that the observations were being made in
the context of the expiry of the term of Jcgi~latui-e as envisioned by
Article l 72 of the Constitution of India and consequwtial general
elections for such Jcgblature. This inust be· so because the •
1
legi>lature would stand dissolved on the e;~:.piry of the term, . ~
Jl and a new legislature has to be ckcted. 1t is in this context
•' (presumably) that u r.:fcrence is made to "imminence of ·: J
elections". For 11 by-election like the one we are c~ncerned with,
there can bc no question of "imminence" or "indifinite postpone· ·
.. ment of elections" which would stall the inslilllation of a demo-
.: crllticully ckctcu ~tnvcrnmcnt. It is no boJy's case that the party
r
G JlOiiliHil iYIIK Ml"h Ihut lhll r~suJt Of tit¢ dcctil'n tv this yacaot seat
! wuul-1 huvo ttlt~·tl th11 tnlljurity unc Wll)' or oth.:r. Nv obliqu¢ motive
,, hull tV~n IJ,•en hinkd ut. lh11 High (.' ourt w~s thcrcTv~ not unjusti·.
lkJ lu rrucccdutll on lhc ussumption that it bad su.:n a p.:!wcr.
If
(
• DocJ the u.l-inralm <Jrd.:r passeJ by th~ High Court merit b.tln~
I llptumcd in ~.Ya<'ise of th.: jurisJh·thm tmcl.:r Art, 136 of _the CoiJ$/I•
~ tulivn of i!Jt/ia l · ·
.;,
3
.
ELECTION COMMIS.SION v. ll~YA.NA (Thakkar, J.)
The only question which arises.is whether the presence was a
case where. the High Court ,could not have granted-the ad·interim A.
order. Be i( realized that if the High Court had not granted the order
and the .Election Commission had not chosen to appear on or before
April 18, 1984 the High Court would have perhaps become power- .
less to pass any order, whatev~r, be the justification for -it, as the
"electoral·pr6cess" would haye 'actually' commenced. Can the
B·
' t High Court then be faulted for"passing the impugned ordet: faced as
· it was by an unprecedented ·situation like the present? On the one
"' hand the Election Commission appeared to have been altogether
' . · oblivious to the dimension as regards the bonafide apprehension
pertaining-to the life and se·curlty of the NationaHeade~s· who might
address public meetings, the candidates; the officers engaged in elec- a·
.tion work, and the v~ters. The danger was furtqer. aggr·avated · in
the face of.open threats held out to the lives of the National leaders
of different political partie~. What is more, the Election Commis-
.r sion has shown total unawareness
•
of ·the. circumstance
.
that public
·meetings were prohibited under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in the constituency going to the polls. On the other hand
the only consequence of granting a stay would have been to ppst·
pone the election .programme by a few days in the event of the
· Election· Commission not choosing to appear in the Court (to show
ca~e why the ad-interim order-should not be made abwlute) on or·
before April 18,,1584 which was thesclleduled date .for issuant~ of
the notification announcing the election ·programme. The Election I.
. Commission could~ have il(>peared before the High Court and got the
stay vacated in time in.stead of approaching th1s Court by way of the
_present appeal by Special Leave. The Election Commission could
not have failed to ·realis~ ti1at no serious consequence would. have
··flowed from the .impugned order even if stay w:as vacated, , not
immediately, but a few days later, for, it.was only a ·by-election to
,,
one single seat of no significance which would not have resulted .-in
postponement of tile installation of an t:lected government. Worse
come 'to wors·~. the by-election cou.ld not have been held along with ..·
by-elections in other States on the 'same' day. The Election
Commission has not been able to show what possible deterim-ent G.,
'would have b~en suffered .if the by-election could not have been so
held on that ·particular day. If the High Court was prima facie
satisfied that the Election Commission nad failed to take into account
vital matters and app.eared to have acted on .non:-consequential
con's]derations, and~ad acted arbitrarily. in turning down the request
. of the State Government· as also th~ Chief Election Officer of
'·
,.
576 SUPREME COVR T RlWO'R TS [19841 3 s.C.R..
. · Haryana, why cou.ld the High Court not grant a stay? And should.
, this Court interfere in such a fact-situation? Learned Counsel for
· the Election Commission, tb.ough repeatedly requested, is unable to
point out eitper from the affidavit filed on 18th, or from the addi-
. tiona] affidavjt filed on the 19th, that the. aforesaid factors were taken
into reckoning by the Commfssion. It . is not 'stated that these
factor's do not exist or have been invented by the State Government
s: . with any oblique motive. The contents pf the affidavits filed by the i .
Election Commission reveal that it was altogether oblivious to all the
relevant factors recounted earlier. There is nothing to .show that a
sin~le factor was preser1t on its mental . screen. The Election
Commissioh has. not apprised the Court as to how~ and why any or
..
all of these factors were considered to be immaterial. No inkling · •
., is given as to how the Election Commission thought that the problems.
. c.;>uld be overcome. By what process of self-hypnotism did the
Election Commission convince itself that free a-nd fair elections could
be held even ,when public meeting~ were banned in the constituency?
How, ·and by. what process of ratiocination did the Election.Conimis-
D · ·. sion convince itself that free elections co.uld be held in a situation
: :where the candidates would. consid~r it hazardous to· contest or to
' inClu1ge in election propaganda, and ,even voters ·y.rould be afraid to
vote? If the Election Commission had any idea as to how. the
hurdless could be crossed 'and problem resolved, it h~s chosen not to
reveal -its perception of the matter. The Election Co.mmissio'n
, perhaps has good answers. But silence is the only answer which has
been given by the Commission as al~o·its counsel on this aspect. 'II
know my-job~and-it-'i.s-none--of-the-business-of-the-Courts" seems to
be. the. ~ttitttde. All that has been stated by the learned counsel for
,-..
, the Commission is that everytbing was considerl!d (without even
disclosing the content 9f the expression 'everything').. Counsel has
, of course set up an-alibi by saying that affidavits.. had to be prepared
by burning mid-night oil. But in that case the concentration would
have been on everything of importai)ce and what was •the essence
~f the matter couid not have been overlooked or forgotten. And
if it h;s escaped attention~ ,:'the conclusion is inevitable that the
Election Commission had not attached due· importance and weight-
.· ,·,age to the ,bas!c problem and had not appl~ed itself seriously to a·
· serious problem.
'
.
.. ·.
'
The fact is establisb~d that tlie Chief Secretary and the Chief
Election Officer. of Haryana, had personally apprised the. Chief
Election Commissioner of the prevailing situation sometime .before
14th April, 1984. ~The Election Commission has not even disclosed
,- ' . .
.•
.....
·.'.~-c:'""" "'""'"'"" '·
{ tlu
HARV"'A (7Mko,, J.)--~:-
·s ract in the petition or in the additional affidavit. Nor has . the
.-1
· , ·.··1
Elec~ion Co01missio~ apcpriscd . u~ as to what transpired at. the · A
(ng: The Election ommtsston 11as• been less than -candid
mee 'to this Court.· No doubt the Chief Election Commissioner is
·.~:~:io.g a respo~s!ble post. But that does no~ ma~7 him infalliable or j
der- his dectston or act any the less arbttrary tf he has failed to . )
:~~orrn himself of the reiC'Vant .factors and has failed to direct his · B
all !
, attention to the core problem. I~ ts no doubt true that theoretically 1
) , the Election Commission can sttll postpone the polling, if it is
10
rnindcd. But should the Court remain a passive spectator in j·
this clttraordinary situ~tion and leave thc·Nation to the mercy of an , I
has .
individual, however high be his office, when it is evid.ent that he ~
secluded himself in. his ivory · tower and has ·shut his eyes to the · C
realities of the situation and closed his mind to the progrrosis of the
matter. The Court can certainly satisfy its_elf w!J.etber the Election
Commissioner had kept his' eyes, ears and mind open, and whether •.
he was able to show that all relevant factors including the considera-
tion as to what advantage w~s to be .secur~d as against the risk to . .
be fuced, · entered into his reckoning. If this is not shown to have . . · D ·... :-
been done, as· in the present case, his decision is ' vitiated and the · ·l
Court need not feel helpless. TI1e High Court was therefore fully
'iu.s\ificd in passing the impugned order.
• • • t
. . ·. • • ·•
. Appeal is acco•dingly dismissed. : E
.J S.R. . '
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Election Commission"Sign in to search