The Supreme Court on Friday admitted a Special Leave Petition filed by the State Election Commission, challenging two judgments of the Madras High Court on holding of elections to the Chennai Corporation in October 2006.
A Bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice H.L. Gokhale admitted the SLP after hearing senior counsel S. Venkataramani for the Commission and counsel Guru Krishnakumar for the AIADMK and others, who had filed the writ petitions in the Madras High Court seeking a direction to hold fresh polls to all 155 wards in the Chennai Corporation.
When Mr. Justice Raveendran pointed out that nothing survived in the SLP and if the parties agreed the observations of the High Court could be deleted, Mr. Krishnakumar submitted that the matter required to be gone into by the court. Mr. Venkataraman submitted that the issue was whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, could entertain election disputes. The Bench then agreed to examine the matter and admitted the SLP.
Split verdict
In the High Court there was a split verdict on this issue by the Division Bench. While Justice F.M. Khalifullah came to the prima facie conclusion that there was violence in the polls and ordered re-poll in 98 wards, Justice Mukopadyaya had held that the petition was not maintainable.
As a result the matter was referred to Justice P.K Misra and he gave a judgment on February 16, 2007 agreeing with the findings of Justice Khalifullah. The SLP was directed against these judgments. Assailing both the judgments, the EC raised substantial questions of law for determination by the court.
It sought to know whether the High Court, by its majority judgment, was correct in entertaining a writ of declaration seeking to set aside the entire Corporation election when there was a constitutional bar on interference by courts with disputes regarding elections. It wanted to know whether the High Court could exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction) and set aside an election to a number of constituencies on the ground of alleged large scale electoral malpractices instead of directing the parties to resort to an election petition.
It also sought clarification on whether the High Court was correct in relying upon certain newspaper reports when all such contentions of poll violence had been disputed by the authorities and whether the High Court erred in passing severe strictures on a constitutional functionary such as the State Election Commissioner on the basis of materials available.
The SLP sought a direction to set aside the two impugned judgments.
