Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Cooling-Off Period For Public Servants Before Contesting Elections

The Supreme Court today dismissed as withdrawn a plea seeking imposition of a cooling off period on public servants to prevent them from contesting elections on political party tickets immediately after discontinuation of their service.

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Sandeep Mehta however permitted the petitioner - a former Parliamentarian - to approach the appropriate authorities with his prayer.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition sought implementation of ECI recommendations of 2012 as well as Recommendation No.53 of Committee on Civil Service Reforms Report- July 2004 of Union of India with regard to imposing cooling off period to prevent Civil Servants, Public Servants from contesting elections to the Legislature, Parliament or State Assemblies, on a political party ticket, immediately after retirement or resignation from service.

It further prayed that Government servants who have served as Legislators may be allowed only one pension from Parliament and Legislative Assembly.

To quote the plea, "...despite these recommendations were made two decades ago they are not being implemented resulting several Bureaucrats, Judges obtain voluntary retirement from the Public Service and choose to contest elections immediately by joining a political party without a cooling off period. That the Officials/Public Servants who would have helped by way of unlawful means were rewarded by the certain Political parties by way of offering them tickets to contest in the Assembly and Parliament elections."

Illustrating with the help of examples, petitioner pointed out that former CJI Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to Rajya Sabha within four months after his retirement.

During the hearing, pointing to the fact that the cited Report was of the year 2012, Justice Kant asked the petitioner's counsel as to why the issue was being raised now in April 2024. The Bench indicated its disinclination to issue notice and enquired if the counsel would like to withdraw or argue.

Conceding, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition. The Bench, although, gave petitioner liberty to approach relevant authorities with his grievance.

The petition had been filed through Advocate-on-Record Sravan Kumar Karanam

Case Title: G.V. Harsha Kumar VERSUS Election Commission of India & Anr., WPC 205/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order