INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (I) versus INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1040 · Decided: 10-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
A 
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (I) 
--1--~ 
v. 
INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND ORS. 
MAY IO, 2002 
B 
">\ 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
I ' 
I 
Election laws : 
'~ .... 
' ... 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 29A-Power of the 
c Commission-De-registration/cancellation of registration of a Political Party-
On the grounds of hartal by force/intimidation/coercion-Held, in the absence 
of express provisions in the Act/Symbol Order, no proceeding could be initiated 
by the Election Commission against a political party for its de-registration. 
Election (Reservation and Allotment) Symbols Order. 
D 
•Power of the Commission to review~Exercise of-Held, incidental and 
ancillary power. But such power is not an implied power of revocation. 
r- -
Administrative law : 
E 
Quasi-Judicial and Administrative functions-Distinction between-
Authority acting quasi-judicially should act according to the rules whereas 
authority acting administratively is dictated by the policy and expediency. 
Quasi-judicial authority-Circumstances-Presence of /is is sufficient to 
hold that statutory authority is a quasi judicial authority-However, in the 
f.--
F 
absence of /is, a statutory authority would be quasi-judicial authority only if 
r-
.... 
it is required to act judicially under the Statute. 
t 
General Clause Act: Section 21 
• 
Applicability of-Held, Provision cannot be extended to the Election 
G Commission since it acts quasi-judicially while exercising its power under 
Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act. 
Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court for enforcement of 
.. 
decision in the case Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar 
'1 
and Ors., AIR (1998) SC 184 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court 
·H 
1040 
,. 
r
~'1 
• 
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS(/) 1·. INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE 
1041 
that" there is a distinction between 'Bundh' and 'Hartal'. A call for a A 
Bandh involves coercion of others into towing the lines of those who 
called for the bundh and that the act was unconstitutional, since it violated 
the rights and liberty of other/citizens guaranteed under the Constitution". 
It was alleged in the writ Petitions that political parties continued to call 
bundh under the name and cover of hartal, and prayed to issue B 
appropriate directions to the State Government to give effect to the 
declaration of law as laid down by the apex Court since High Court 
earlier issued orders accordingly and State Government in compliance 
thereof issued necessary orders/directions which proved ineffective. Some 
of the writ petitioners submitted representation to the Election Commission 
as well for de-registration of such political parties who had contravened C 
the provisions of the Constitution and no action has been taken by the 
Election Commission and, therefore, it was prayed for issuing a direction 
to the Election Commission of India to take action against registered 
political parties for violation of their undertaking that they would abide 
by the Constitution. High Court found that the political parties had 
contravened the constitutional provisions of guaranteed freedom to the 
citizens. Thus they were liable to be appropriately dealt with and though 
there is the absence of express provisions to de-register a political party 
D 
but on application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and on a 
complaint filed for de-registation of a political party on the ground of 
violation on Constitutional provisions, the Election Commission, after E 
giving an opportunity to such political party on a finding that such political 
party had com milted breach of the provisions of the Constitution, Election 
Commission could de-register or cancel the registration of such political 
parties. Hence these appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that in the absence of express F 
provision to, cancel registration of a political party, the Election 
Commission of India, under Section 29A of the Act, could not initiate any 
such proceeding against a political party. There was no power of review 
conferred on the Election Commission. Therefore, it could not de-register 
a political party for violation of either the provisions of the Constitution G 
or for commission of breach of Undertaking given to the Election 
Commission; and that it is erroneous to draw conclusion that the Election 
Commission is empowered to revoke the rescind the order of registration 
on application of Sectio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.