INTRODUCTION
On June 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court quashed a petition filed by the YSRCP party headed by the Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy.[1] The petition pleaded to quash the circular released by the Election Commission of India, which applied only to Andhra Pradesh.
The controversy arose on account of votes cast through postal ballots. The law requires that such votes be valid only when duly attested and signed by said officer.[2] The circular relaxed this threshold so that votes would be valid even if a mere signature is present in the absence of details of the attesting officer. The party held the circular to violate the statutory requirement of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The High Court refused to entertain the petition. The Supreme Court, through an order, declined to intervene and agreed with the High Court that the relevant remedy to address the petitioners’ concern would be an ‘Election Petition’.
This case highlights the reticence of the higher courts in intervening in election matters while the election is underway. This blog starts with a general analysis of the legal system around elections. It then moves into a more specific area, i.e. judicial non-intervention in the election process, to understand its reasons and analyse whether ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ in such cases.
THE LAW ON ELECTIONS IN INDIA
In a democracy as vast as India, holding elections is a mammoth task spanning several stages — nominations, polling, election notification, and declaration of results. Two crucial pieces of legislation govern all of these processes: the Representation of the People Act 1950 (“ROPA 1950”) and the Representation of the People Act 1951 (“ROPA 1951”). Provisions of the Constitution also deal with other aspects of representation and elections.
The ROPA 1950 deals with — (i) voter qualifications, (ii) delimitation of constituencies, (iii) distribution of seats, (iv) preparation of the electoral roll, and others.[3] The ROPA 1951 deals with — (i) procedure of conducting elections, (ii) candidate qualifications, (iii) electoral offences and unjust practices, as well as (iv) challenges to an election.[4]
The Constitution also establishes the election law under Articles 324 – 329A. The separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary is important for Indian democracy.[5] Article 329 separates the domains of the Legislature and the Judiciary, expressly barring judicial interference in election matters. [6] It establishes the Election Commission of India as an independent body charged with supervising the election process.[7]
Given this formulation of law, does it mean that a citizen cannot go to court in case of irregularities in the election processes? The following sections will analyse this question.
ELECTION PETITION – POSTPONED INTERVENTION
Even though judicial interference is barred in election matters, it is not eliminated. Article 329 itself states that challenges to elections can be brought before the court through a remedy called an ‘Election Petition’. ROPA 1951 establishes the law on election petitions.
One can present an Election Petition only within 45 days after completion of the election of a candidate in a constituency. The relevant High Court has the power to hear an election petition.[8] An election petition can be filed to declare a candidate’s election void and to seek a declaration that the petitioner has been elected instead.[9] The grounds for seeking such a relief include —
- That the elected candidate was not qualified to get elected;
- That either he, his election agent or anyone else with his consent had undertaken corrupt electoral practices;
- That any other candidates’ nomination was unfairly discarded;
- That the election result has been affected materially because —
- Some a vote was improperly rejected or accepted;
- Either the provisions of the Constitution, the ROPA 1951 or the rules made under it were not followed.[10]
Thus, we observe that election disputes can be presented to courts only after the election in the relevant constituency has been concluded. This means that the remedy, though available, is merely postponed until the elections are concluded. Given this, we ought to ask, is ‘Justice delayed, justice denied’ in cases of elections? The blog will now analyse the rationale behind deferring the remedy.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE LAWS
The Constitution provides that all election matters should be out of the purview of any court except in cases where an election petition is filed before the High Court. However, the Constitution empowers the High Courts to entertain petitions under writ jurisdiction without any time limits. Through a series of case laws, the apex court harmonised these two contradictory provisions so that the remedy under Article 329 is not violative of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer 1952 was one of the earliest cases to come before the court on the subject matter.[11] The court’s reasoning in the case was further elaborated and solidified in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner 1977.[12] The reasoning in the case elucidates the rationale behind delaying judicial intervention in election matters while the elections proceed. The court emphasised the principle that guides Article 329 — that a smooth and fast election is in the most significant interest of our democracy, as legislatures are critical to the efficient running of the nation. Hence, the law postpones electoral disputes till the conclusion of elections.
We observe that the legal formulation of Article 329 was still very crude. The apex court refined the law further in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar 2000. Broadly, the court made certain exceptions to the general rule of Article 329, the essence of which is emphatically captured in the following words used by the court —
“Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies that have arisen nor assuming the role of over-enthusiastic activists would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.”[13]
The court re-emphasised the underlying principle of smooth and expedient elections and further refined the law as below[14] —
- If the petition is a regular petition (i.e., not an election petition), the court shall entertain it under Article 266 only if it is satisfied that the proceedings would not deter the smooth and fast pace of the election process.
- If a regular petition is filed, the court shall entertain it under Article 266 if the petition removes an obstacle in the election process and thus furthers its completion.
- The court was also cognisant of cases where the court’s intervention is crucial in protecting a vital piece of evidence which would otherwise be lost if the election process is allowed to continue. However, the court should be satisfied that the intervention would not thwart the election’s progress.
- The court can also hear a petition claiming that the Election Commission of India has acted arbitrarily and unlawfully. Thus, judicial review will equally apply to such a petition under Article 266.
The above analysis reveals the premium placed on a fast and smooth election process and how the courts have evolved the law on election disputes, providing us with an explanation for the courts’ postponed intervention in such matters. In this sense, justice delayed here is not justice denied but democracy furthered.
CONCLUSION
The analysis explains the reason for postponing judicial intervention in electoral disputes that arise during the election process. Expedited elections are desirable, and to such an extent that the law allows no court to intervene while the process goes on, and such intervention is postponed until the elections have been concluded.
The apex court appreciated the nuance while carving our exceptions to this general rule, exhibiting legal adeptness. Though the court retained the strict threshold of not tempering with the progress of ongoing elections, it recognised alternative scenarios where applying the general rule would cause injustice.
In conclusion, we can say that justice delayed in election disputes is justice furthered by guaranteeing democracy through a smooth and uninhibited election process, which itself makes justice possible. Due to their inherently contesting nature, elections involve a wide range of disputes. If courts take up every election dispute, then the process of elections is itself jeopardised. In this way, the delayed remedy acts as a safeguard to the process of democracy.
Author(s) Name: Bhavya Gujral (NALSAR University)
References:
[1] Institutional Author, ‘SC junks YSR Congress petition challenging ECI’s postal ballot norms in state’ The Hindustan Times (3 June 2024)
[2] The Conduct of Election Rules 1961, r 24
[3] The Representation of The Peoples Act 1950
[4] The Representation of The Peoples Act 1951
[5] Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549
[6] The Constitution of India 1950, art. 329
[7] The Constitution of India 1950, art. 324
[8] The Representation of The Peoples Act 1951, s 80A
[9] The Representation of The Peoples Act 1951, s 101
[10] The Representation of The Peoples Act 1951, s 100
[11] N.P. Ponnuswami v The Returning Officer 1952 AIR SC 64
[12] Mohinder Singh Gill v The Chief Election Commissioner 1978 AIR SC 85
[13] Election Commission of India v Ashok Kumar 2000 AIR SC 2979
[14] Election Commission of India v Ashok Kumar 2000 AIR SC 2979
