2000 (8) TMI 1145 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Limits Judicial Intervention in Elections; Upholds Election Commission's Ballot Mixing Rule for Fair Process.

Election Commission of India Through Secretary Versus Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Election Commission of India Through Secretary Versus Ashok Kumar and Ors. - (2000) 8 SCC 216 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain petitions under Article 226 during the electoral process.2. Validity and impact of the Election Commission's notification under Rule 59A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.3. Allegations of booth capturing and the necessity of counting votes polling station-wise.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain petitions under Article 226 during the electoral process:The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions and issue interim orders during the electoral process. Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars interference by courts in electoral matters, stating that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented after the election. The term 'election' includes the entire process from the notification to the declaration of results. The Court reiterated that judicial intervention should be postponed until after the completion of election proceedings to avoid interrupting, obstructing, or protracting the election process. However, the Court acknowledged that judicial review is permissible on grounds of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power by the Election Commission.2. Validity and impact of the Election Commission's notification under Rule 59A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961:The Election Commission of India issued a notification under Rule 59A, directing the mixing of ballot papers before counting in certain constituencies in Kerala, citing apprehensions of intimidation and victimisation of electors. The High Court stayed this notification, directing that votes be counted polling station-wise. The Supreme Court found that the Election Commission had the power to issue such a notification and that the High Court's order was based on a lack of information about the notification's publication in the official gazette. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have intervened amidst the election process, as the petitioners did not present a prima facie case of mala fides against the Election Commission.3. Allegations of booth capturing and the necessity of counting votes polling station-wise:The respondents alleged large-scale booth capturing and irregularities in the polling process, arguing that counting votes polling station-wise would preserve evidence for potential election petitions. The Supreme Court noted that the Election Commission's decision to mix ballot papers was made in the interest of free and fair elections and the safety of electors. The Court suggested that any grievances regarding the counting process could be addressed in an election petition after the results were declared, and that the Designated Election Judge could order a re-count if necessary.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's interim orders. The Court emphasized that judicial intervention during the electoral process should be limited to avoid disrupting the election proceedings. The judgment clarified that the Election Commission's actions are subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power, but such review should not interrupt the election process. The Court's observations were made without prejudice to any issues that may arise in future election petitions.