CRUX: N. Haridasan V. State of Kerala (22nd March 2021) – Kerala High Court dismisses NDA Candidates’ petitions challenging rejection of election nominations.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22nd March 2021
JUDGES: Justice N. Nagaresh
PARTIES: N. Haridasan (Appellant)
Government of Kerala (Respondent)
SUMMARY: The following judgement given by the Kerala High Court deals with the dismissal of the petition challenged by NDA candidates for rejection of the election nominations.
AN OVERVIEW
- The High Court of Kerala in the present case had clubbed together four petitions and combined it to form a single petition.
- The nominations of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) candidates in Guruvayur, Thalassery and Devikulam were rebuffed by particular returning officers on the ground of faulty submissions.
- The Kerala High Court’s conclusion came after the Election Commission presented an affidavit that the decision of the returning officer was conclusive and the court cannot interfere once the notification for the election process is being issued.
- A single bench of Justice N Nagresh dismissed the writ petitions that were filed by the BJP candidates N Haridas from Thalassery constituency, Nivedida Subramaniam from Guruvayur, and AIADMK candidate Dhanalakshmi from Devikulam.
- On Saturday, during the final close examination of the nominations, appropriate forms were submitted along with their nominations and were found without the required signature of the party president.
ISSUES
The following issue was analyzed by the court-
- Whether the petition filed by the petitioners was reasonable or not?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India-
• Article 324- Superintendence of elections to be vested in an Election Commission.
• Article 329 B- Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.
• Article 226- Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
To resolve the issue, the court duly noted that-
- Counsels for the petitioners argued that the Returning Officers acted unduly by rejecting the nominations on the grounds of technical defects, which were able to be fixed. They further argued that the Returning Officers acted with unnecessary alacrity to reject the nominations, without sparing an opportunity for the candidates to fix the defects present. Resisting that the absence of signature was not very important, the candidates found a way to the Returning Officers to agree to their nominations.
- According to them, the Returning Officer has discretionary or unrestricted powers to approve the redressal of such defects. In this reference, they further argued that in the other constituencies like Piravom and Kondotty, the Returning Officers had given time to candidates to fix the similar defects in election forms.
- They also argued that the bar against judicial impedance was not applied to in the immediate cases as the petitioners were not questioning the election process. There is an ability under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene with the arbitrary orders of the Returning Officers, which have violated the rights of the petitioners.
- Counsel appearing for the candidate from Devikulam, argued that the Returning Officer has powers to approve the rectification of such defects. Similar defects were approved to be fixed in other constituencies. He further argued that under Art 324C, the Election Commission could order corrections of such arbitrary exercise of powers by Returning Officers.
- Election Commission while opposing the plea told the Court that juridical intervention in the poll matters is dismissed after the notification of elections, as per Article 329B of the Constitution. The signature of Party President was a necessary demand under the Rules, and its absence is a nominal defect. Such disputes can only be resolved as per the statutory remedies after the completion of election. Since no alternate candidates were sent out, the dismissal means that NDA will have no candidates in these constituencies for the assembly elections scheduled on April 6.
- The bench commemorated that the Election Commission of India has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to correct any error or inadequacy in the electoral process. It will be open to the Election Commission of India to look into the accusations made by the petitioners and take remedial measures, as required. The bench also conveyed its concerns regarding the non-uniform framework which is adopted by the Returning Officers of the different constituencies. While emphasizing that it could not survey the merits of the petitioners' submissions, High Court urged the Election Commission to ensure the "virtue of the electoral process is maintained"-
"Having grasped, this Court outlines with the concern that the Returning Officers in various constituencies that are addressing distinct frameworks in the matter of acknowledgment and scrutiny of nominations and acceptance of its various forms. When some candidates grab the benefits of progressive approach of the ROs, some others are sent to disadvantageous positions affecting their statutory rights under the Representation of the Peoples Act to compete in the elections. This Court is of the belief that taking notes of the actual situations revealed in these writ petitions, the ECI shall take essential steps so that such prejudicial treatment is excluded and the virtue of the election process is conserved", Justice Nagaresh observed.
CONCLUSION
On Monday, the single bench of Justice N Nagaresh said that the court cannot intervene with the verdicts taken by the Returning Officers (ROs) to reject the nomination papers on the grounds of not accomplishing essential requirements. The bench further said that once the election process begin, the court cannot interfere in between. With the discharge of the petitions, the NDA will not have the candidates for Thalassery, Guravayoor and Devikulam Assembly constituencies. Nevertheless, the candidates can still appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court to look for legal remedy.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
