Political Alliance Or Front Need No Registration To Contest Elections : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that an unregistered Political Front- which is an alliance of political parties- is entitled to set up candidates or to engage in any kind of election campaign while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration that such Fronts should not be permitted to do so. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly while declining to entertain the plea, observed: 

"A Political Front is entitled to set up candidates or to engage in any kind of election campaign, by printing and publishing posters or advertisements, in the print or electronic media during elections. In as much as, a Political Front is not an entity, in terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there is no compulsion that a political alliance or Political Front be registered under any law much less the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951."

It also observed as follows:

"A Political front is nothing but an alliance of political parties. It is not a legal entity, in terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The political system in India does not prohibit the alliance of political parties to contest in elections."

The Court added that the petitioner failed to make out a case of public interest, and dismissed the PIL finding that no fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under the Constitution of India was affected by the formation of a political alliance.

Factual Background:

The petitioner, claiming to be a strong proponent for transparency and truth in India's electoral process filed the instant Public Interest Litigation seeking a declaration that unregistered Political Fronts in the nature of the Left Democratic Front (LDF), United Democratic Front (UDF), and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) do not have the right to set up candidates or to engage in any kind of election campaign.

The petitioner also prayed for a direction compelling the Election Commission of India, to ensure that unregistered Political Fronts as mentioned before do not engage in any kind of election campaign. 

In his plea, it was been stated that aggrieved by the stand of the Election Commission permitting Political Fronts to interfere in the election campaign by sponsoring candidates for the elections and by publishing misleading advertisements, the petitioner submitted a representation.

The representation requested the Commission to remove flex boards from all the States instituted on behalf of various candidates and also to disqualify the candidates campaigning themselves as sponsored by Political Front candidates.

However, the petitioner was informed that no action was called for in the matter of political alliance by the political parties. Hence, the petitioner approached the Court. 

Contentions Raised: 

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Johnson Gomez and C. Unnikrishnan.

According to the petitioner, Political Fronts are not registered under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and they do not have a constitution or membership. 

It was also contended that there is no organisational set-up recognised by law, nor is there any regulatory mechanism, to regulate the functioning of a front. 

Petitioner has contended that the leaders of political parties were lured to join the Political Front by offering illegal gratification. These political parties, after accepting the gratification, either set up candidates in the Constituency or restrain candidates from contesting elections, he added. 

He contended that at the end of the day, candidates are nominated as sponsored by Political Fronts, and the electors cast their votes on the promise and representations made by Political Fronts.

After the elections, there is no requirement that candidates should continue with the respective Political Front, until the next election. In such circumstances, the petitioner representations made by Political Fronts are potentially intended to deceive the voters, who cast their votes on the deceptive representations of the Political Fronts.

Findings:

The Court recalled that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provided for the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.

The Bench skimmed through a few provisions of the Act, particularly Section 2(f) which interprets 'political party' to mean an association or a body of individual citizens of India registered with the Election Commission as a political party under Section 29A.

"A perusal of the statutory provisions makes it clear that any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself all the provisions of Part IV-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 require registration. A political front is nothing but an alliance of political parties. It is not a legal entity, in terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The political system in India does not prohibit the alliance of political parties to contest in elections."

The Court noted that it could be for a common purpose for opposing a political party or parties, or for propagating the principles and the purpose under which the alliance of political parties propose to administer if elected. Such political parties may have even a common ideology.

The collective name assigned to such a group of political parties for contesting in an election may be called a Front or any other name, they chose. Alliance of political parties is entitled to have its name, indicating that they have aligned together, to seek votes from the voters.

"A Political Front is entitled to set up candidates or to engage in any kind of election campaign, by printing and publishing posters or advertisements, in the print or electronic media during elections. In as much as, a Political Front is not an entity, in terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there is no compulsion that a political alliance or Political Front be registered under any law much less the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951."

On the facts and circumstances of this case, it was also found that the petitioner had not made out a case of public interest.

"We also find that no fundamental right of a citizen, guaranteed under the Constitution of India, is affected by the formation of a political alliance." 

Petitioner had also sought for a writ of mandamus compelling the Election Commission of India to ensure that unregistered Political Fronts do engage in any kind of election campaign.

After referring to scores of decisions, the Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be granted for mere asking and that it required the presence of a judicially enforceable right. 

The Bench found that in the absence of any statutory provision mandating the Election Commission of India to regulate the functioning of political alliances, no mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner.

Going by the statutory provisions, the Court took the view that the prayers sought for by the petitioner were untenable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.

Case Title: Dr. George Joseph Themplangad v. Union of India & Ors 

Click Here To Read The Order