Janasena Party Vs The State Election Commissioner and Varla Ramaiah Vs The State Election Commissioner

DATE OF THE ORDER:
21st May,2020

JUDGES:
The Hon’ble Justice Shri M. Satyanarayana Murthy

PARTIES:
Janasena Party (Petitioner)
Varla Ramaiah (Petitioner)
The State Election Commissioner (Respondent)

SUBJECT

In this case, two petitions were filed seeking the same relief and on the grounds that the respondent did not impose MCC for a period of four weeks before the notified date of polling, as mandated by the Supreme Court of India prior to issuing the order. The court in the following case tried to answer four questions raised before them, which were:

1. Whether the petitioner, Sri Varla Ramaiah, advocated for any public cause in the writ petition?
2. Whether the respondent infringed or invaded Sri Varla Ramaiah's statutory or constitutional rights by issuing Notification on April 1, 2021?
3. Is the Notification in conflict with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directive?
4. Is the entire notification for the election of MPTCs and ZPTCs liable to be set aside in light of the report submitted to the Central Government by respondent No.1?

OVERVIEW

• Supreme Court on 18th March 2020 declined to intervene in the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission's (APSEC) decision to postpone the state's local body elections by six weeks due to the Coronavirus pandemic.
• The Supreme Court ruled that since the Election Commission has already decided to postpone the elections, there should be a post-decisional consultation with the state of Andhra Pradesh before the Election Commission announces the new date. Four weeks before the election, the Model Code of Conduct for the elections shall be re-imposed.
• Two writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking the same relief and on the same significant grounds.
• The first writ petition was filed by Janasena Party claiming a declaration that the respondent's notification resuming the election process of MPTCs ZPTCs in the state of AP without issuing a fresh notification and also reporting instances of violence, namely, prevention from filing nominations and forceful withdrawal, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Articles l4 and 243-K of the Indian Constitution.
• The second writ petition was filed by Varla Ramaiah, General Secretary of the Telugu Desam Party, to declare the respondent's action in not imposing the MCC for four weeks before the notified date of polling, as mandated by the Supreme Court of India before issuing the order.
• The common ground in both the petitions was that when a notification for holding elections for MPTCs and ZPTCs was issued, the election process for MPTCs and ZPTCs had been completed up to the stage of publication of the list of contesting candidates.
• The respondents made two different claims. The petitioner's locus standi was challenged at one point, and the "form" was challenged at another. The respondents also sought to dismiss the writ petition filed by one Sri Varla Ramaiah, on these grounds.
• The respondents specifically denied the alleged violence, forcible withdrawal of nominations, preventing candidates from filing nominations, and so on, while arguing that the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief for the issue of new election notifications to MPTCs and ZPTCs.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER

• The Court stated by answering the first question that because the petitioner is an elector who is competent even to challenge the election of the people's representative under the Representation of the People Act, the Court cannot deny the petitioner relief in the current petition on the grounds that he lacks locus standi because the right to choose people's representatives in fair and free elections is denied by the first respondent's act.
• In response to the second question, the Allahabad High Court pointed out that to obtain a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must plead and prove that a legal right vested in him has been violated, infringed, or threatened to be infringed and that in the present case, pleadings were insufficient to prove the existence of a legal right.
• In response to the third question, the court stated that the first respondent, as a constitutional authority, is expected to uphold the rule of law and act within the scope of constitutional authority, but acted in clear defiance of the directions, almost disrespecting the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. As a result, the notification challenged in the writ petitions is likely to be overturned. As a result, the question was indeed decided in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
• In response to the fourth question, the court stated, "When the State has incurred such huge expenditure as a consequence of hasty acts of State officials, infringement of citizen or public rights cannot be permitted, and such equity cannot outweigh the statutory rights of the electors and contesting candidates of Janasena Party. As a result, it is difficult to grant the learned senior counsel's request for respondent No.1, which is henceforth denied.
• The elections of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTC) and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies (ZPTC) held on April 8 were declared invalid by the Andhra Pradesh High Court because there was no mandatory four-week Model Code of Conduct gap between the election notifications and the election date.
• The State Election Commission's decision to resume local body elections in Andhra Pradesh without enforcing the Model Code of Conduct for four weeks before the notified polling date was termed "hasty" by the High Court. According to the Court, such acts by the SEC are what cause the state to lose its democratic values and become an autocracy or oppressive government.
• The Court has directed the SEC to release a new notice resuming the election process for MPTCs and ZPTCs from where it was previously halted, with a four-week gap for MCC.
• The SEC's notification dated April 1, 2021, to resume Mandal and Zila Parishad elections, which were postponed last year due to the raging Covid-19 pandemic, is illegal on two counts, according to a single bench led by Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy:

1. It violates the Supreme Court's order from last year, which directed the SEC to enforce the MCC four weeks before the informed polling date.
2. It would sabotage the proposed election's equal footing by denying political parties and their candidates the chance to campaign for their candidates.

• The Supreme Court scolded the State Election Commissioner for misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision and treating the four weeks as an upper limit.

CONCLUSION

Every democracy is built on free and fair elections. Reaffirming the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which state that the authority to govern must be based on the will of the people as expressed in periodic and genuine elections. The criteria for participation in government must be determined in accordance with national constitutions and laws, and they must not conflict with the State's international obligations. Everyone has the right to join or co-found a political party or organization to compete in elections.

Everyone, individually and collectively, has the right to freely express political opinions; to seek, receive, and impart information to make an informed decision; to move freely within the country to campaign for election; and to campaign on an equal footing with other political parties, including the party forming the current government. When such an opportunity is denied, the petitioner, as an individual elector, has the right to challenge the actions of the State and its agents. Because democracy is a fundamental feature of our constitutional structure, there can be no doubt that free and fair elections to our legislative bodies alone would ensure the growth of a healthy democracy in the country.

To ensure the integrity of the election process, our constitution writers believed that the responsibility for holding free and fair elections in the country should be delegated to an independent body that is free of political and/or executive interference. Under Article 324(1) of the Constitution, the establishment of an Election Commission, a permanent body, achieves this goal.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement