2014 (4) TMI 1119 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Election Commission's authority to investigate election expenses under Section 10A

ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN Versus. MADHAVRAO KINHALKAR

The Supreme Court affirmed the Election Commission's jurisdiction under Section 10A to investigate the accuracy of election expenses. It stressed the ... Jurisdiction Under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 - whether no person can by way of a complaint approach the Election Commission? - right conferred on any person to seek for inspection of the accounts - disqualification the Appellant for a period of three years - Held that:- Reading Section 10A along with Rules 87 to 90, in particular, the right conferred on any person to seek for inspection of the accounts submitted, it will have to be held that such a right is not conferred merely to look into the details of the account. If based on the inspection, made by a person Under Rule 88 and the attested copies of such accounts disclose that the candidate concerned committed a very serious illegality in the matter of submission of the account of election expenses, it must be stated that such a person will have every right to bring it to the notice of the Election Commission for taking appropriate legal recourse available to that person under the Act. It may be stated that once any such misfeasance in the submission of the account of the election expenses is brought to the notice of the Election Commission, thereafter it would be for the Election Commission to set the process in motion for deciding the issue as contemplated in Section 10A of the Act. It cannot be said that no person can by way of a complaint approach the Election Commission. If someone is able to assert such misuse of funds in the process of election by a candidate by making an inspection Under Rule 88 and if the concerned individual finds out that such misuse of funds had taken place, which was not disclosed in the statement of account of election expenses, he will have every right to bring it to the notice of the Election Commission and the very purport of providing such a right Under Rule 87 and 88 when read along with Section 10A makes it clear that he would have every locus to prefer a complaint. Also in the course of an enquiry made Under Section 10A, the Election Commission can call upon the concerned individual to substantiate the complaint with relevant materials to enable the Election Commission to pass appropriate orders of disqualification under the said Section. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the Complainants have no locus cannot be accepted. The Election Commission of India considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, the reply submitted by the Petitioner on 22nd July, 2011 as well as the supplementary reply dated 4th April, 2011 and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction Under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 declaring the Petitioner disqualified for three years. All the conditions, for exercise of power Under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 were fully satisfied and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Election Commission of India dated 20th October, 2011 which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Having perused the above order of the Division Bench, wherein the details with regard to the various allegations relating to the violation in the lodging of the election expenses; in such details, in the absence of glaring illegality or irregularity pointed out before us, we have no reason to interfere with those finding of facts arrived at by the Election Commission, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench after a thorough examination. Therefore, on merits as well, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Election Commission disqualifying the Appellant for a period of three years. The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Election Commission under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. The scope and interpretation of Section 10A vis-`a-vis Sections 77 and 78 of the Act.3. The impact of previous judgments, particularly Sucheta Kripalani v. S.S. Dulat and Ors. and L.R. Shivaramagowda and Ors. v. T.M. Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. and Ors., on the current case.4. Locus standi of the complainants.5. The procedural aspects and the nature of inquiry under Section 10A.6. The relationship between the findings of an Election Tribunal (High Court) and the Election Commission's jurisdiction under Section 10A.7. The implications of Article 329(b) of the Constitution on the Election Commission's jurisdiction.8. The interpretation of the term 'in the manner required' under Section 10A.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Election Commission under Section 10A:The Supreme Court examined whether the Election Commission has the authority under Section 10A to inquire into the correctness of the election expenses filed by a candidate. It concluded that the Election Commission does possess this jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that Section 10A empowers the Election Commission to determine if the expenses were lodged 'in the manner required by or under this Act.'2. Scope and Interpretation of Section 10A vis-`a-vis Sections 77 and 78:The Court analyzed Sections 77 and 78, which mandate the maintenance and lodging of election expenses. It held that the Election Commission's role under Section 10A includes verifying whether the expenses were true, correct, and within the prescribed limits. The Court noted that this responsibility is not merely a formality but a substantive requirement to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.3. Impact of Previous Judgments:The Court distinguished the current case from the decision in Sucheta Kripalani, which dealt with the old Section 7(c) and concluded that the lodging of election expenses was a matter of form. It held that the introduction of Section 10A, which replaced Sections 7(c) and 8(b), expanded the Election Commission's powers, making the decision in L.R. Shivaramagowda more relevant. The Court upheld the view in Shivaramagowda that the Election Commission has the authority to inquire into the correctness of election expenses.4. Locus Standi of the Complainants:The Court rejected the contention that the complainants lacked locus standi. It held that any person, including electors, has the right to inspect the election expenses and bring discrepancies to the Election Commission's notice. This ensures transparency and accountability in the electoral process.5. Procedural Aspects and Nature of Inquiry under Section 10A:The Court emphasized that the inquiry under Section 10A is not a mere formality but a substantive process to verify the correctness of the election expenses. It held that the Election Commission must issue a show-cause notice, consider the candidate's representation, and conduct a thorough inquiry before passing an order of disqualification.6. Relationship between Findings of Election Tribunal and Election Commission's Jurisdiction:The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal (High Court) and the Election Commission under Section 10A are distinct. While the Election Tribunal deals with the validity of the election, the Election Commission's role under Section 10A is to ensure compliance with the requirements for lodging election expenses. Therefore, the dismissal of an Election Petition does not preclude the Election Commission from inquiring into the correctness of election expenses under Section 10A.7. Implications of Article 329(b) of the Constitution:The Court held that the inquiry under Section 10A does not conflict with Article 329(b), which restricts the challenge to elections to Election Petitions. It noted that Section 10A deals with disqualification for failure to lodge correct election expenses, which is distinct from challenging the validity of an election.8. Interpretation of 'in the manner required' under Section 10A:The Court interpreted the phrase 'in the manner required' to include not only the form but also the substance of the election expenses. It held that the Election Commission must ensure that the expenses are true, correct, and within the prescribed limits, reflecting the actual expenditure incurred by the candidate.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's jurisdiction under Section 10A to inquire into the correctness of election expenses. It emphasized the substantive nature of this inquiry to ensure transparency and integrity in the electoral process. The Court also clarified the distinct roles of the Election Tribunal and the Election Commission, ensuring that the latter's jurisdiction under Section 10A is not undermined by the former's findings. The judgments in the appeals were dismissed, affirming the Election Commission's orders of disqualification.