The Madras High Court on Monday observed that it “expected” the Union Law Ministry to take an early decision on a proposal sent by the Election Commission (EC) in 1998 to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and empower the EC to cancel the registration of political parties that violate the provisions of the Constitution.
The First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar made the observation while disposing of a public interest litigation petition filed by P.A. Joseph, leader of a union of loadmen at Koyambedu market here. The petitioner had sought to quash an RTI reply sent to him by the EC stating that it lacked the power to deregister political parties.
He claimed that the power conferred on the Commission, under Section 29A of the RP Act, to register political parties, would include the power to deregister too though the law does not contain a specific provision for cancellation of registration. Even otherwise, the EC could invoke its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, he added.
However, the Division Bench agreed with the EC’s counsel Nirajan Rajagopalan that the legal question related to the Election Commission’s power to deregister or cancel the registration of a political party had already been answered by the Supreme Court on May 10, 2002, in the case between Indian National Congress versus Institute of Social Welfare.
In that judgment, a two-judge Bench comprising Justices V.N. Khare and Ashok Bhan had held that “there being no express provision in the Act or in the Symbol Order to cancel the registration of a political party, no proceeding for deregistration can be taken by the Election Commission against a political party.”
Pointing out that the Commission acts as a quasi judicial authority while registering a political party, the apex court had said that the EC cannot review the registration, in the absence of a specific provision, either for having violated the provisions of the Constitution or for having committed breach of undertaking given to the Commission at the time of registration.
Therefore, the present PIL petition could not be ordered as prayed for, the Division Bench led by Ms. Justice Banerjee said. However, since it was brought to its notice that a proposal forwarded by the EC in that regard was pending with the Centre for nearly two decades, the Bench expected the Law Ministry to act upon it as expeditiously as possible.
