LexLAKSHMI CHARAN SEN AND ORS ETC. versus A.K.M. HASSAN UZZAMAN AMO ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LAKSHMI CHARAN SEN AND ORS ETC.
'·
A.K.M. HASSAN UZZAMAN AND ORS. ETC.
May 8, 1985/lanuary 12, 1983/March 30, 1981.
[Y.Y, CHANDRACHUD, C.l., D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN, BAHAi.VL
II!LAM AND i.S. YINbU.li.AWIAH, JJ.]
C•nstitution of India 1950.
493
A
B
Artie!~ 226-I61ection prOC4SI-lnt,ftunc• by Hith Court'-Po&tP<m•ment
C
t~f ~ections-lnterim ortl"s •nd lir•ctlona-l'assint of-Caution and re/uc·
t•.,ce-Neceuity of.
Article 324-Elector•l rolls-Preparation of-Election Commiuion not
havint own staff-Central and State Government staff-Enumerators-Objections
ilf Jist-Disposal of-Efficiency and impartia{ity-EmphaJised.
0
Article 329 (b)-Electoral
rol!s-Prtparation and ,ublication of-
Whether part of' election process'-Allegations of irregularities in electoral rolls-
btterference by High Court in electoral matters-Whether bar to illterferelfce.
The Represelftation Df PeDple Act 1950 Sectitms 14 (b) t1nti 21.
J'lre Represutation "f l'eople .4ct 1951.
Election Commfssion-Givlnr rJ/ directions t• Chief Klectoral O.ffictrs-
Whether have force of law-Violatiolf of direct/au-Whether creal• rights a11d
"(,ligations under Election Law.
Electoral Roll-Prept~ratlo1f tJnd r•vision-What is·-Spuial revis;,,._
JVIIM arises-'Qualifyillg dote' In regard to electoral rrJII-What is.
Tlf11 Registratitm of El«tors Rules 1960. Rules 10 to 20 a1ftl 2~.
Conduct of Election Rules 1961
'hasie roll of con!tituency'-What is- Voters list-Basis of free tJNd /tJfr
elections-Jnclusion in electoral roll deletion of inelitible person11 wrDngly
included-Rights a/ eligible
Voter-Fee of 10 p. /or challenge-Levy of-
Wh'!ther unreasonable.
Administrat/Pe Law
Co1utltutio111JI ilutitutio1u tJitd /uNcti(Jnarie$-DisclrtJrge ~f duties by-
PresumpliDif of existence of bottttlde&-Preferve (Jifd fTt?t~ct i11territy of b•TM·
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985J SUPPL. S.C.R.
fides-Preserve and pretec/ integrity of constitutional institutions-Duty of
courts.
A writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court claiming the
following reliefs : (I) That the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief
Electoral Officer be restrained from acting, either by themselves or through
their subordinates, in pursuance of the instructions or directions issued by
them from time to time ; (ii) that they should be restrained from scoring out
any names from the electoral rolls which were finally published ; (iii) that they
!ihould be restrained from issuing or publishing any notification under s. 15 (2)
of the Representation of People Act of 1951 without preparing the electoral
rolls de novo, after the disposal of the appeals against orders whereby claims
and objections were decided; and (iv) that they should be restrained from
holding elections to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly until the disposal
of all the claims, objections and appeals under the Representation of People
Acts of 1950 and 1951,
The writ petitioners who were eight in number were enrolled as voters
in the electoral roll of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Some of them
were office-bearers of political parties like the West Bengal State Muslim
League, West Bengal Unit of the Janta Party, All India Christian Democrate
Party and West Bengal Congress Legislative Party. It was contended in the
writ petition that the guidelines or instru.::tions issued by the Chief Flectoral
Officer by circular dated March 12, 1981 asking all the District Officers and the
Sub-Divisional Officers to make a de novo intensive revision of the electoral
rolls for the general election to the Legislative Assembly, West Bengal. without
reference to the then existing electoral rolls are vague, unreasonable and
arbitrary as a result of which it would not be possible to hold fre.! and fair
elections on the basis of those rolls,and that the guidelines or instructions
issued were blatantly violated in certain cases, and that the exact extent of the
polling areas was not demoarcated clearly, no house-to· house visits were made
and the names of the members of each household who had attained the age
of 21 year on tb.e prescribed date were not recorded in several cases. By a
Memorandum dated May 12, 1981 which was after the work of the intensive
revision of the electoral rolls had begun, the Election Commission of India
informed the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and the Union Territories
that its attention was drawn to certain irregulatities in thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.