Meghalaya High Court Dismisses Saket Gokhale's Plea Seeking Action Against NPP For Violation Of Electoral Rules

In the plea filed in 2022, Gokhale had submitted that the National People's Party had not filed the election expenditure statements for several elections, including the Meghalaya Assembly Elections of 2018. His counsel further submitted that the party had breached the stipulation given in Rule 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which mandates that the election expenditure has to be filed within a period of 75 days, after the completion of Assembly Elections.

Gokhale in his plea had averred that since NPP had violated this provision, necessary punitive action was to be inflicted by the Election Commission which however, failed to take any action.

Advocate S. Sahay, the counsel for NPP, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition by stating that a constitutional bar exists against interference by Courts in electoral matters and referred to Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The bar to interference includes all matters directly or incidentally connected with the electoral process, which is already underway in the state of Meghalaya, whereby elections to the Legislative Assembly, has been notified on 18.01.2023, he added.

It was also submitted that the writ petition was hit by inordinate delay and laches as the filing of election expenditure report related to 2018, whereas, the writ petitioner instituted the case only in 2022, without providing any explanation for the delay. The counsel alleged that the petition has been filed with a political motive as elections are scheduled in 2023.

Justice H. S. Thangkhiew observed that Article 329 of the constitution clearly bars the interference by Courts in electoral matters, and as such, will normally oust the jurisdiction of the court in any matter relating to the election, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, except where the assistance of the court is sought merely to correct or smoothen the progress of election proceedings, or to remove the obstacles that may stall an election process.

Explaining the limitations of the courts in such matters, the bench observed that the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, was formulated in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution, read with section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and all other powers enabling it by the Election Commission of India

“The issue of non-compliance of Rule 16A, an Order made under the powers vested under Article 324, will in turn, be covered by Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is widely worded to include all kinds of infractions which are residual in nature, within the scope of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” the bench explained.

Observing that the election process has already been set in motion in the state of Meghalaya, the court said: "therefore, apart from a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, no other forum can adjudicate in such matters. No special circumstances that, the writ petition has been filed in aid of and in furtherance of the election process, are visible or apparent in any manner, as the petitioner seeks that action be taken against the respondent No. 3, which cannot be said to subserve the election process." 

Relying on the apex court judgement in Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors. (2004), the court said the dispute sought to be raised by the writ petitioner will not be entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, more specifically with the electoral process already underway.

"This Court having come to a finding on the maintainability of the writ petition to be barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution, the other questions and the authorities placed are not gone into or discussed, and this writ petition accordingly stands dismissed, as not maintainable," it said.

Case Title: Shri. Saket S. Gokhale Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 5

Click Here To Read/Download Order