2002 (5) TMI 847 - SC - Indian Laws

Election Commission's quasi-judicial role under s.29A bars using Section 21 to de-register parties after enquiry, except fraud or voluntary renunciation

SC held that the Election Commission, when registering parties under s.29A, performs a quasi-judicial function and therefore Section 21 of the General ... Power of the Election Commission of India (ECI) u/s 29A - Application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to quasi-judicial orders - Whether the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act') has power to de-register or cancel the registration of a political party on the ground that it has called for hartal by force, intimidation or coercion and thereby violated the provisions of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The order which can be modified or rescinded on the application of Section 21 has to be either executive or legislative in nature. But the order which the Commission is required to pass under Section 29A is neither a legislative nor an executive order but is a quasi-judicial order. We have already examined this aspect of the matter in the foregoing paragraph and held that the functions exercisable by the Commission under Section 29A is essentially a quasi-judicial in nature and order passed thereunder is a quasi-judicial order. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to confer powers of de-registration/cancellation of registration after enquiry by the Election Commission. We, therefore, hold that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application where a statutory authority is required to act quasi-judicially. It may be noted that the Parliament deliberately omitted to vest the Election Commission of India with the power to de-register a political party for non-compliance with the conditions for the grant of such registration. This may be for the reason that under the Constitution the Election Commission of India is required to function independently and ensure free and fair elections. An enquiry into non-compliance with the conditions for the grant of registration might involve the Commission in matters of a political nature and could mean monitoring by the Commission of the political activities, programmes and ideologies of political parties. This position gets strengthened by the fact that on 30th June, 1994 the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Bill, 1994 was introduced in the Lok Sabha proposing to introduce Section 29-B where under a complaint to be made to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the main office of a political party is situated for cancelling the registration of the party on the ground that it bears a religious name or that its memorandum or rules and regulations no longer conforming the provisions of Section 29-A (5) or that the activities are not in accordance with the said memorandum or rules and regulations. To sum up, what we have held in the foregoing paragraph are as under: That there being no express provision in the Act or in the Symbol Order to cancel the registration of a political party, and as such no proceeding for de-registration can be taken by the Election Commission against a political party for having violated the terms of Section 29A(5) of the Act on the complaint of the respondent. The Election Commission while exercising its power to register a political party under Section 29A of the Act, acts quasi-judicially and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial order and once a political party is registered, no power of review having conferred on the Election Commission, it has no power to review the order registering a political party for having violated the provisions of the Constitution or for having committed breach of undertaking given to the Election Commission at the time of registration. However, there are exceptions to the principle stated in paragraph 2 above where the Election Commission is not deprived of its power to cancel the registration. The exceptions are these - (a) where a political party has obtained registration by practising fraud or forgery; (b) where a registered political party amends its nomenclature of association, rules and regulations abrogating therein conforming to the provisions of Section 29A(5) of the Act or intimating the Election Commission that it has ceased to have faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy or it would not uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India so as to comply the provisions of Section 29A(5) of the Act; and (c) any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the Commission. The provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be extended to the quasi-judicial authority. Since the Election Commission while exercising its power under Section 29A of the Act acts quasi-judicially, the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application. The appeals are allowed in part. 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.