“Of course, inasmuch as the power of altering every feature of the Constitution remains elsewhere politically, the Constitution is neither the ultimate ‘‘political’’ sovereign nor a legally unalterable and absolute sovereign. All constitutional and ‘‘legal’’ sovereigns are necessarily restrained and limited sovereigns. I thought and still think that such a working theory should be acceptable to lawyers, particularly as the dignitaries of State, including Judges of superior Courts, and all the legislators, who have to take oaths prescribed by the Third Schedule of our Constitution, swear ‘‘allegiance’’ to the Constitution as though the documents itself is a personal Ruler. This accords with our own ancient notions of the law as ‘‘The King of Kings’’ and the majesty of all that it stands for: The Rightfulness of the Ends as well as of the means.” Kesvananda Bharti’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to a Constitution Bench the petitions filed by the rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the political development in State of Maharashtra. This is Breaking News today.
Several questions are before Supreme Court which will now constitute five Judges Bench. I will not touch the same. But can Court by its order restrain any constitutional independent body from discharging its function under the constitution for which it is constituted?
First, let us see relevant provisions.
Part XV of the Constitution provides for elections.
- Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission.—(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution 1*** shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).
(2) The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.
(3) When any other Election Commissioner is so appointed the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the Chairman of the Election Commission.
(4) Before each general election to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of each State, and before the first general election and thereafter before each biennial election to the Legislative Council of each State having such Council, the President may also appoint after consultation with the Election Commission such Regional Commissioners as he may consider necessary to assist the Election Commission in the performance of the functions conferred on the Commission by clause (1).
(5) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine: Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment:
Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
(6) The President, or the Governor 1*** of a State, shall, when so requested by the Election Commission, make available to the Election Commission or to a Regional Commissioner such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the Election Commission by clause (1).
- No person to be ineligible for inclusion in, or to claim to be included in a special, electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.—There shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State and no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll or claim to be included in any special electoral roll for any such constituency on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.
- Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage.—The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 2 [eighteen years] of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.
- Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures.—Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses.
- Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature.—Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in so far as provision in that behalf is not made by Parliament, the Legislature of a State may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, the elections to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses.
- Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— [Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution 2***—]
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. 3329A. [Special provision as to elections to Parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker.].—Omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 36 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
In case of issue of disqualification, the constitution provides under.
- Disqualifications for membership.—(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State—[(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;]
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.
[Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause], a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State.
[103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members.—
(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final.
[(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.]
Note: Ground of disqualifications are identical to state membership under Art.102
[192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members.—(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final.
(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.]
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. AIR 1952 Sc 16, Rel. on. (Para 8) Anno: AIR Comm. Const of India, Art. 226, Note 184.
- Further Functions as referred to in Article 324 (6) include powers as well as duties. It is incomprehensible that a person or body can discharge any functions without exercising powers. Powers and duties are integrated with function. The Chief Election Commissioner has to pass appropriate orders on receipt of reports from the returning officer with regard to any situation arising in the course of an election and power cannot be denied to him to pass appropriate orders. Moreover, the power has to be exercised with promptitude. Whether an order passed is wrong, arbitrary or is otherwise invalid, relates to the mode of exercising the power and does not touch upon the existence of the power in him if it is there either under the Representation of the People Act or the rules made in that behalf, or under Art. 324 (1). The Commission is entitled to exercise certain powers under Art. 324 itself on its own right, in an area not covered by Representation of the People Acts and the rules. It is clear even from Sec. 58 and Section 64A of the Representation of the People Act (1951) that the legislature envisaged the necessity for the cancellation of poll and ordering of repoll in particular polling stations where situation may warrant such a course. When provision is made in the Act to deal with situations arising in a particular polling station, it cannot be said that if a general situation arises whereby numerous polling stations may witness serious mal-practices affecting the purity of the electoral process, that power can be denied to the Election Commission to take an appropriate decision. The fact that a particular Chief Election Commissioner may take certain decisions unlawfully, arbitrarily or with ulterior motive or in mala fide exercise of power, is not the test in such a case. The question always relates to the existence of power and not the mode of exercise of power. Although Sec. 58 and Section 64A mention “a polling station” or “a place fixed for the poll” it may, where necessary, embrace multiple polling stations. It is true that in exercise of powers under Art. 324 (1) the Election Commission cannot do something impinging upon the power of the President in making the notification under Sec. 14 of the Representation of the People Act. But after the notifications has been issued by the President, the entire electoral process is in the charge of the Election Commission and the commission is exclusively responsible for the conduct of the election without reference to any outside agency. There is no limitation in Art. 324 (1) from which it can be held that where the law made under Article 327 or the relevant rules made thereunder do not provide for the mechanism of dealing with a certain extraordinary situation, the hands of the Election Commission are tied and it cannot independently decide for itself what to do in a matter relating to an election. The Election Commission is competent in an appropriate case to order re-poll of an entire constituency where necessary. It will be an exercise of power within the ambit of its functions under Art. 324
- In Kanta Kathuria’s (AIR 1970 Sc 694) Kanta Kathuria was disqualified by reason of holding an office of profit. First the Ordinance and later the Act was passed to nullify the decision of the High Court. The Ordinance as well as the Act stated that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court of Tribunal, the officer shall not be disqualified or shall be deemed never to have disqualified the holder thereof as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The rendering of a judgment ineffective by changing the basis by legislative enactment is not encroachment on judicial power because the legislation is within the competence of the legislature.
- In Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya v Lachhi Ram, (1955) 1 SCR 608 = (AIR 1955 SC 686) rejected the contention advanced there that Sections 123 (5) and 124 (5) of the 1951 Act interfered with a citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech. This Court said that these laws do not stop a man from speaking. They merely prescribe conditions which must be observed if one wants to enter Parliament. The right to stand as a candidate and to contest an election is not a common law right. It is a special right created by statute which can only be exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute. The Fundamental Rights Chapter has no bearing on a right like this created by a statute relating to election.
- Civil Appeal No-50 of 1965 (Decision dated 12th February 1965) Brundaban Nayak Vs. Election Commission of India and Another Article 324 (1) vests in the Election Commission the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of the President and Vice President held under the Constitution. Article 324 (1) is thus couched in wide terms. Power in any democratic set up, as is the pattern of our polity, is to be exercised in accordance with law. That is why Arts. 327 and 328 provide for making of provisions with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elections for the Union Legislatures and for the State Legislatures respectively. When appropriate laws are made under Art. 327 by Parliament as well as under Article 328 by the State Legislatures, the Commission has to act in conformity with those laws and the other legal provisions made thereunder. Even so, both Arts. 327 and 328 are “subject to the provisions” of the Constitution which include Art. 324 and Art. 329. Since the conduct of all elections to the various legislative bodies and to the offices of the President and the Vice-President is vested under Article 324 (1) in the Election Commission the framers of the Constitution took care to leaving scope for exercise of residuary power by the Commission in its own right, as a creature of the Constitution, in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in such a large democracy as ours. Every contingency could not be foreseen, or anticipated with precision. That is why there is no hedging in Article 324. The Commission may be required to cope with some situation which may not be provided for in the enacted laws and the rules. That seems to be the raison d’etre for the opening clause in Articles 327 and 328 which leaves the exercise of powers under Article 324 operative and effective when it is reasonably called for in a vacuous area. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the Election Commission will have to conform to the existing laws and rules in exercising its powers and performing its manifold duties for the conduct of free and fair elections. The Election Commission is a high-powered and independent body which is irremovable from office except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution relating to the removal of Judges of the Supreme Court and is intended by the framers of the Constitution to be kept completely free from any pulls and pressures that may be brought through political influence in a democracy run on party system. Once the appointment is made by the – President, the Election Commission remains insulated from extraneous influences, and that cannot be achieved unless it has an amplitude of powers in the conduct of elections of course in accordance with the existing laws. But where these are absent, and yet a situation has to be tackled, the Chief Election Commissioner has not to fold his hands and pray to God for divine inspiration to enable him to exercise his functions and to perform his duties or to look to any external authority for the grant of powers to deal with the situation. He must lawfully exercise his power independently, in all matters relating to the conduct of elections, and see that the election process is completed properly in a free and fair manner.In para 689 Supreme Court said
- I do not suggest that such an encroaching power will be pursued relentlessly or ruthlessly by our Parliament. But no Constitution can survive without a conscious adherence to its fine checks and balances. Just as Court ought not to enter into problems entwined in the “political thicket”, Parliament must also respect the preserve of the Courts. The principle of separtion of powers is a principle of restraint which “has in it the precept, innate in the prudence of self-preservation (even if history has not repeatedly brought it home), that discretion is the better part of valour”. Courts have, by and large, come to check their valorous propensities. In the name of the Constitution, the Parliament may not also turn its attention from the important task of legislation to deciding court cases for which it lacks the expertise and the apparatus. If it gathers facts, it gathers facts of policy. If it records findings, it does so without a pleading and without framing any issues. And worst of all, if it decides a Court case, it decides without hearing the parties and in defiance of the fundamental principles of natural justice.
In the matter before the Supreme Court in the case of Shinde vs Shiv Sena neither Speaker has passed any order nor the Election Commission. Without going into merits and reading papers it’s my feeling that the same is pre-matured. There cannot be a stay on the discharge of duty against the Election Commission. Whatever order passed by Election Commission can be challenged in High Court and then Supreme Court. Her Excellency President must exercise her right under the constitution to consider contempt of Peoples Mandate, similarly, His Excellency Governor of State of Maharashtra and Bihar also keeping the office of President of India in the loop.
The Supreme Court must first consider whether there is encroachment in the Jurisdiction of the Election Commission?
If Parties are permitted to overturn the mandate of the public then its a mockery of the Constitution and Democracy.
The actual reference should be can parties defeat and cheat mandate? What happened in Maharashtra and Bihar?