Courts Must Interfere In Election Process If There's Unjust Executive Action Or Attempt To Disturb Level Playing Field : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that as a general rule, the courts do not interfere in election matters. However, the court clarified that this principle is not absolute. It recognized that there are circumstances where executive actions or attempts to disrupt a fair electoral playing field may emerge. In such cases, the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but also duty-bound to step...
The Supreme Court recently held that as a general rule, the courts do not interfere in election matters. However, the court clarified that this principle is not absolute. It recognized that there are circumstances where executive actions or attempts to disrupt a fair electoral playing field may emerge. In such cases, the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but also duty-bound to step in and ensure the integrity of the election process.
It observed “We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in"(emphasis supplied)
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a petition filed by the Union Territory of Ladakh opposing the allotment of 'plough' symbol to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC).
The Court stated the reason behind its longstanding practice of adopting a hands-off approach in electoral matters to uphold the sanctity of the democratic exercise.
It added, “The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof.”
Coming to the facts of the present case, the court noted the proactive approach of the J&K NC(respondent) in seeking relief for the allocation of the “plough” symbol which was duly granted by the HC. However, the court didn't mince words when addressing the appellants in the case.
The Court rebuked the Ladakh Administration for non-compliance with court orders and emphasized that it would not allow the Administration to avoid accountability for its actions by seeking the Court's intervention only when it suited their interests.
It noted “It is the Appellants, who by virtue of sheer non-compliance of the High Court’s orders, be it noted, without any stay, can alone be labeled responsible for the present imbroglio. These stark facts cannot be broadly equated with other hypothetical scenarios, wherein the facts may warrant a completely hands-off approach.”
The Court warned against the arbitrary use of election Powers and stressed the need for timely judicial oversight.
It observed, “This case constrains the Court to take note of the broader aspect of the lurking danger of authorities concerned using their powers relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter, being complacent, rather over-confident, that the Courts would not interfere.”
The Court debunked the misconception that mere passage of time could prevent the remedying of election-related injustices. It highlighted that the conduct of the authorities leading to such injustices may force their hand to prevent any attempts at subverting the democratic process.
It opined “The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that – misconceived. However, conduct by authorities as exhibited herein may seriously compel the Court to have a comprehensive re-think, as to whether the self-imposed restrictions may need a more liberal interpretation, to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, and done in time to nip in the bud any attempted misadventure.”
Moreover, the Court sent a clear message stating that it possesses the power to restore the status quo ante, effectively reversing any adverse effects caused by undue delays or other systemic issues while referring to Nabam Rebia’s case(2016).
It observed “No litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned. This Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures. The powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt.”
The Court held that there is no inherent barrier preventing High Courts from exercising jurisdiction, even on a principle level, in matters pertaining to elections and related issues. It referred to a catena of recent judgments like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 6 SCC 548; Laxmibai v Collector, (2020) 12 SCC 186, and State of Goa v Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC 4019.
The Court added, “The High Court, being a Constitutional Court, is not, by any stretch of imagination, precluded from issuing a direction of the nature issued by it in the instant case, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when such direction does not violate any statutory provision”. while also referring to Aish Mohammad v State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 736.In light of the above, the court held that “On scrutiny, in combination with the timelines and facts of the matter herein, we are sure that the High Court did not falter. The orders of the High Court, in our considered opinion, were in aid of the electoral process, and no fault can be found therewith.”
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case title: UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749; INSC 2023 804