Telangana Elections 2023: High Court Says Power To Interfere Under Writ Jurisdiction After Election Process Has Commenced Very Limited
The Telangana High Court has reiterated in various cases filed through the week that the writ jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the election process once the elections have been announced is extremely limited."It is trite law that only when an action of the Returning Officer results in stalling or stoppage of elections, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India...
The Telangana High Court has reiterated in various cases filed through the week that the writ jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the election process once the elections have been announced is extremely limited.
"It is trite law that only when an action of the Returning Officer results in stalling or stoppage of elections, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere," the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar said while heavily relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Manda Jagannath vs. K.S. Rathnam.
All claims were relating to the upcoming Elections in the State of Telangana scheduled to be held on the 30th of November.
In one of the writ petitions filed before the Court, the petitioner, a candidate from the Bahujan Samaj Party was challenging the rejection of her nomination paper from the Madhira Assembly Constituency. She contended that the nomination was rejected on the ground of submitting Xeroxs of Form A & B in place of the originals and prayed to set the rejection order aside.
The Bench while dismissing the claim held that it would be open to the petitioner to file an election petition.
In another writ petition, The Praja Shanti Party, a registered political party with The Election Commission of India prayed for re-issuance of Election Notification on the ground that their party symbol had not been assigned, despite submitting an application in time.
In a third writ petition, an Ex- MLA, the petitioner, objected to the nomination filed by a respondent. The objections of the petitioner were rejected by the Returning Officer.
Lastly, in the fourth writ petition, the petitioner, a resident of Achampet, went through the electoral rolls, found that the name of one of the respondents was on the electoral roll, despite her not being a resident of that constituency or a resident of India for that matter. Petitioner then made an application before DEO to deletion of the name of the respondent, however the petitioner contended, that the application was rejected without making reference to the Election Commission as per clause 13.7.1 of the Election Manual therefore the rejection would be vitiated.
The Election Commission contended that no representation was required as per the clarification issued to the Election Manual in August 2023.
The Bench in the last case held that the rejection was in accordance with the clarification to the manual provided and also stated that the grievance could be raised in an election petition.
While dismissing all the claims the Court stated:
"The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the process of election once the same has commenced is well defined by a catena of decision. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
Counsel for petitioner: G. Srikanth, Senior Counsel L. Ravi Chander representing Y. Rama Rao, G.L. Narasimha Rao and Kondadi Ajay Kumar.
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India Avinash Desai, Standing Counsels Omer Farooq and Diyva Adepu.
Click Here To Read/Download Order [31836]
Click Here To Read/Download Order [31240]