LexDIGVIJAY MOTE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DIGVIJA Y MOTE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AUGUST 16, 1993 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. ANDS. MOHAN, J.] Constillltion of Indicr-Article 324-Judicial Review-Exercise of power by Election Commission under the article, held, not a/together unreview- ab/e-Judicial review pemzissible over statutory body exercising functions affecting public law right;-A1tic/es 14, 19, 32(j, SJ-A-Natural justice-Rep- resentation of the People Acts 1950 and 1951-PIL. The petitioner claimed to be an active social worker and a keen observer ol' the existing electoral process. He filed this petition in the public interest with the sole object of cleansing the existing electoral process and to contest tht! election. He contended that the electoral process was afilicted with distor- tions, very often intentionally. The absence of representative from Assam in the 9th Lok Sabha and from Jammu and Kashmir in the 10th Lok Sabha were cited as examples. He prayed inter a/ia that the proceedings in, and privileges of, members of the existing Lok Sabha be stayed; the Council of Ministers be injuncted from acting; the voting. rights and privileges of elected members from Punjab be restrained: the Chief Election Commissioner be debarred from acting; and elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies be conducted under the authority, supervision, direction and control of this Court till the pendency of this petition. Dismissing the petition, this Court HELD: I. The conduct of election is in the hands of the Election Com1nission \~'hich has the power of superintendence, direction and con~ trol of election vested in it as per Article 324 ol' the Constitution. Conse- quently, if the Election Commission is of the opinion that having regard to the disturbed conditions of a State or a part thereof, free and fair elections could not be held it may postpone the same. However, this power A B c D E F G is not unbridled. Judicial review will still be permissible over the statutory H 553 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A body exercising its functions effecting pubHc law rights. [557-C-D, E] Clive Lewis, Judicial Remedies in Puh/ic Law - referred to. On importing the principle of natural justice into Article 324 (1), Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissio11e1; [19n) 2 SCR 272 at B 298 and 307, referred to. [558-D] 2. The iesultant position is that it cannot be stated that the exercise of power under Article 324 is not altogether unreviewable. The review will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. [560-F] C 3. To every democracy, election is essential. No doubt, such .elections D will have to be free and fair. ( 556-fl-H] N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, [1952] SCR 218, 229 aud Mohinder Singh Gill v. 1he Chief Election Commissione1; [1978) 2 SCR at 285, referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 384 to 386 of 1993. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. E Petitioner in person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. These Writ Petitions have been preferred by way of Public Interest Litigation for the enforcement of fundamental rights, Politi- F cal rights and fundamental duties of the people and electorate-citizens of India under, inter alia, Articles 14 and 19 read with Articles 326 and 51-A and various statutory provision. G The following prayers are made before us in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 1993:- (1) direct Respondent 4 to stay the proceedings and functions of the exiting Lok Sabha and the privileges of its members until the disposal of this petition; (2) .direc~ Respondent 4 to miunct the Council of Ministers H headed, by Mr. P.V. Narsimha Rao, from aiding and advising the DIGVIJAY v. U.0.1. (MOHAN,J.] 555 President forthwith; (3) restrain the voting rights and other privileges of the elected members of Parliament from the )ltate of Punjab until final hearing and disposal of this petition; A ( 4) issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus B or an order or injunction debarring Respondent-3 from discharg- ing the functions of or officiating as Chief Election Co~1missioner until the final hearing and disposal of this petition; (5) issue a writ of mandamus against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 directing each of them not to proceed with the holding of Par- C liamentary General Election in the State of Jammu & Kashmir until the final hearing and dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.