RAM DEO BHANDARI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 17-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

_., 
RAMDEO BHANDARI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 17, 1995 
[AM. AHMADI, CJ, S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
B 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) 
Constitution of lndi<~Article 3~ower" of Election Commission to 
withhold elections for failure to issue identity cards-Elections to Legislative 
Assembly of Bihar and Orissa-States not allowed elections for their failure c 
to supply identity cards to 'all' eligible electors-Writ Petitions-State of Bihar 
allowed to go to polls-Since State of Orissa had supplied photo identity cards 
to 86% of voters-Election Commission not t~ enforce its instruction~lec-
ti on. 
The five year term of the Legislative Assemblies of two States, D 
namely, the State of Bihar and Orissa were to expire on March 15, 1995. 
To satisfy the mandate of Article 168 of the Constitution, elections in the 
two states had to be completed before March 15, 1995. However, a Press 
note was issued by the Election Commission stating tbat no poll would be 
taken in that State unless 'all' eligible electors were supplied electoral E 
identity cards and a certificate to that effect was furnished by the con· 
cerned State Government. 
Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners apprehending that since 
the two States were not in a position to complete the requirement o.f 
supplying photo identity cards to 'all' eligible electors before the last date F 
faxed for the same, elections might not take place in the said two States 
thereby denying to the elecrtors thereof their constitutional right to elect 
a new assembly for their respective States. · 
As far as the State of Orissa was concerned, the Election Commis- G 
=-/ .., 
sion stated that since the State of Orissa had virtually, complied with the 
direction, in that, it had supplied photo identity cards to almost 86% of 
voters, the Commission will not enforce its instruction contained in the 
Press Note. For the state of Bihar, it was submitted that it was a wilful 
defaulter since it made no serious effort to comply with the direction of 
the Election Commission for the supply of identity cards. However, it was H 
321 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A alleged on behalf of the State that the Election Commission had ~o power 
or authority to hold up or to threaten to hold up the election process if 
'"-
the identity cards were not issued. 
Dispa .. ing of the matter, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The State of Bihar had lagged far behind in implementing 
the orders of the Election Comission. However, the Election Commission 
is mindful of the consequences that may follow should the two States not 
" 
be allowed to go to the polls for their failure to supply identity cards to 
'all' eligible electors. The Commission assured that since elections to the 
r
c 
legislative assembly of Bihar had been notified, the Election Commission 
will not withhold the elections for want of identity cards. The Election 
Commission, however, desired that the State should undertake to complete 
the entire exercise before September 30, 1995. No such undertaking having 
been sought from the State of Orissa, the counsel for the State of Bihar 
was asked on receiving instructions in that behalf from his client to report 
D within four weeks. (325-G, 326-F, 327-C] 
2. The Election Commission shall not withhold the elections to the 
legislative assemblies of Bihar and Orissa on the ground that the said 
Governments had failed to complete the process of issuance of photo 
E 
identity cards by the deadline prescribed by it. There will be an interim 
stay in the said terms. The Election Commission will, however, be free to 
take such other steps as it considers necessary and are permissible to 
ensure a fair and free poll. [327-B] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 1995 etc. 
F etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
M. Chandrasekharan, Additional Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, 
D.D. Thakur, G. Ramaswamy, F.S. Nariman, K.N. Bhatt, Raju 
G Ramachandran, Gopal K. Jain, Mukul Mudgal, Rajeev Sharma, S. Murlid-
bar, Ms. Shomona Khanna, Niranjan Reddy, Raj Kumar Mehta, R.S. 
Lambat, AK. Panda, Ravi P. Wadhwani, Ms. Leela Gupta, Gooptu, H.K. 
'f' ,_,_,. 
Puri, AS. Bhasme, Kumar Rajesh Singh, B.B. Si~gh, A Subba Rao, 
P.Parmeswaran and Navin Prakash for the appearing parties. 
H 
In-person, (NP) In T.C. (C) No. 13/94. 
R.D. BHANDARI v. ELECTION COMMN. 
323 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Article
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.