BHIM SINGH, PRESIDENT JAMMU AND KASHMIR PANTHERS PARTY versus THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 04-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
) 
BHIM SINGH, PRESIDENT JAMMU AND 
KASHMIR PANTHERS PARTY 
v. 
THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF !NOIA AND ANR. 
APRIL 4, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.[ 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
ATticle 14-S.JO(d) of Representatio11 of the People Act, 1951 Chal-
lenged as ultra vires Altic/e 14 as it does 11ot specify maximum period for 
ho/di11g election after withdrawal of 11omination-He/d, it is impossible and 
u11desirable that a11y outer limit should be placed i11 s.30(d) for the date of 
poll--Fixatio11 of date of poll would depe11d on a valiety of circwmta11-
ce,-S.30(d) is 11either arbitrary 11or u11constitutional. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
S.30(d}-Appointme11t of date of poll-Held, s.30(d} is neither arbitrmy 
nor unconstitutional, in not prescribing outer liinit of poll. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 227 of 
1996. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Petitioner in-person, S.K. Bhattacharya, S.K. Bandopadhyay and S. 
Mitter for the Petitioner. 
t\-1.K. Banerjee) Allorney General an<l P. Parm~sh\varan for Llnion 
of India. 
G.L. Sanghi and AM. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
This is a writ petition for a declaration that Section 30 ( d) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, is unconstitutional and ultra vires H 
15 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Article 14 of the Constitution of India "as it does npt specify the maximum 
period for holding the election after the withdrawal of nomination .......... ", 
and for a direction to the Election Commission of India to issue a separate 
notification under Section 30( d) read Section 153 of the Act for holding 
elections in the State of .lammu & Kashmir withirl 20 days from the date 
B 
for withdrawal of nominations. The writ petition is flied by one Bhim Singh, 
who is the President of a political party recognised by the Election Com-
mission, namely, the Jammu & Kashmir Panthers IParty. The writ petition 
con lends that the provisions on Section 30( d) confer unbridled, unguided 
and uncontrolled power upon the Election Commission to hold polls upon 
c 
D 
E 
F 
any day subsequent to the date of withdrawal of 111ominations and fixes no 
terminal date in this behalf. It is also the case in the writ petition that 
prospective candidates in the State of .lammu & Kashmir would have to 
obtain personal security from the State for a peri9d of one month and 24 
days and this would be both difficult and expensive. 
Having regard· to the obvious urgency, notice was issued on 2nd 
April, 1996, to the Union of India and the Election Commission to file 
counter-affidavits and the writ petition was posted for hearing on 3rd April, 
1996. 
On 3rd April, 1996 the Election Commission did not file a counter 
affidavit but relied upon material on record. 
The Union of India filed a counter affidavit affirmed by the Joint 
Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It states that "the Union of India 
shares the sentiments and the concern expressed by the petitioner". It states . 
that, contrary to past practice and to the period Of 20 to 25 days provided 
for constituencies outside the State of J ammu & E:ashmir in the forthcom-
ing Parliamentary elections, the period for canvassing in the State of 
.I ammu & Kashmir is, according lo the schedule laid down by the Election 
Commission, 55 days. The affidavit states that "owing to the prevailing 
G 
peculiar situation in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, it is not desirable that 
the time for canvassing in the State should be more than the necessary 
minimum statutory period, inter-alia, for the follmving reasons : 
H 
(a) the candidates would requires to obtain personal security from 
the State for comparatively a longer period of 55 days for the 
BHIM SINGH v. ELECTION COMMNR. OF INDIA 
17 
polling on 30.5.96 and 48 days for the polling on 23.5.96. This is in A 
contrast with the rest of the country where the period ranges from 
21 days to 31 days. 
(b) It costs a t,'Teat deal lo the State in terms of resources and 
effort to provide security for such a long period to the candidates, 
their family members, their election agents, their political workers 
etc. In this context it would be relevant to state there that there is 
a threat from various militant outfits from outside the country to 
disrupt the process of the general elections including attempts at 
liquidating th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.