'Assembly Elections Were Held In States' : Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay Local Body Elections Amid COVID19

The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected two intervention applications filed by State Convener of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) (Karnataka) Purthvi Chintapalli seeking to stay elections which are scheduled to be held on April 27, for various municipalities.

The intervener claimed that the situation in Karnataka is grim and pandemic has caused a serious public health crisis. As on date there are more than 1.4 lakh active cases of covid-19. Taking note of the step hike in covid-19 cases, night curfew and weekend curfew has been declared. Further, it is said that public health infrastructure in the state and especially in the districts where the elections are being held are not in a position to handle a further increase in case that may occur on account of these elections.

The State Election Commission informed the court that on March 29, they had issued a calendar of events. "Only polling is remaining, that is on Tuesday", the ECI counsel said.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindraj in its order said "Firstly, we must note here that the intervener wants drastic relief of stay of election of several municipalities. We fail to understand under what law such relief can be claimed by the intervener. After March 2020, in a number of states, legislative assembly elections have been held even in the state of Karnataka elections have been held."

It added "State Election Commission counsel states what remains to be done is only polling at these bodies. It is for the election commission to decide whether extraordinary situations is created to postpone the elections. SEC is bound to ensure all covid norms are followed during polling. Thus no relief can be granted."

During the hearing the bench questioned the applicant by saying "This is a frivolous attempt to ensure that constitutional mandate is not complied with. Applicant belongs to Aam Aadmi Party seeking stay of elections, such a person cannot be termed as pro-bono litigant."

The bench also asked the applicant why he had come at the 11^th hour seeking stay of conducting elections. It said "If you claim to be a public spirited person, where were you when elections to local bodies were not held." It added "We don't have an understanding of the political implication of holding or not holding elections, but the state had conducted SSLC exams during the lockdown."

Following which it rejected the applications.