Balzor Singh vs Chief Election Commissioner of India and Another

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by inclusion of large number of ineligible voters in Gokal Pur No. 68 constituency for the election of the Delhi Legislative Assembly.

The petitioner contends that no less than eight thousand voters, ineligible for being included in the electoral rolls were allowed to exercise the franchise, in November, 2008. The reason for their ineligibility, it is alleged is that they are residents of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner had contested the elections as a candidate but was declared unsuccessful.

Learned Counsel relies upon the revisions carried out in the electoral rolls and submits that even according to their own documents, no less than two thousand voters were not entitled to be included in the electoral rolls and were later deleted. It is submitted that this substantiated the petitioner''s grievance that at the relevant time in November, 2008, more than eight thousand such voters, who resided in Uttar Pradesh were allowed to vote in the elections.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of Delhi and Others Vs. Surjeet Singh and Others, and K. Venkatachalam Vs. A Swamickan and Another, and submitted that this Court has inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant the relief sought.

Learned Counsel for the Election Commission of India appearing on advance notice submitted that the Writ Petition itself is infructuous since the electoral rolls for assembly constituency No. 68 on the basis of which elections were held in November, 2008, have undergone revision and that fresh rolls were published w.e.f. 1.1.2009. It is further argued that the respondents - Commission has carried out the verification process and published the fresh rolls which renders claim (c) infructuous. Counsel submits that besides these the petitioner cannot seek the other relief of the direction to set aside the result of the seventh respondent, the successful candidate, since the appropriate remedy in that regard would be an election petition u/s 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

The Court has carefully considered the submissions. Article 329(b) enacts a bar inhibiting the Courts exercising jurisdiction in regard to election disputes. Consistently the Supreme Court has ruled N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, that Courts should desist from interfering with election processes and leave such disputes for determination to the properly constituted forum in that regard. Having regard to this clear position, this Court is of opinion that the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 cannot be utilized for the purpose.

As far as arguments by the petitioner with regard to K. Venkatachalam''s case are concerned, the facts there were that the appellant was declared as disqualified and had nevertheless contested the election. The Court felt that this amounted to fraud on the Constitution as a candidate due to such disability could not take oath. In the circumstances, the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 was held to be maintainable. Further the Court had affirmed the findings of the High Court and did not primarily exercise the jurisdiction invalidating the election process in the first instance, as the petitioner is inviting this Court to do.

Apart from the above reasons, there can be no dispute that the revision of the concerned electoral rolls has taken place w.e.f. 1.1.2009. Any intervention by this Court with regard to the position as it existed before 1.1.2009 would necessarily involve examination of disputed questions of facts which are best left to be determined by the Election Tribunal constituted for the purpose.

For the above reasons, the Writ Petition has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed.