Search the Internet          Tips

Election Commission supreme in matters of polls: Supreme Court

Answering the Presidential reference on the Election Commission's controversial order on Gujarat, the Supreme Court on Monday said the election to a prematurely dissolved state assembly can be held six months after the last sitting of the House.

A five-member Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B N Kirpal rejected arguments of the central government for holding early polls in Gujarat on the ground that Article 174 of the Constitution mandated that six months should not lapse between the two sittings of the assembly.

The bench said Article 174 applies only to an existing assembly and not to a dissolved one. Therefore, there is no time limit for holding of elections for an assembly dissolved prematurely.

The bench said there was no controversy between Article 174 and Article 324, the latter giving exclusive power to the Election Commission for conducting polls.

"Article 174 and Article 324 operate upon different planes and neither of them is subject to the other," it said rejecting EC's arguments that Article 174 will yield to Article 324 in matters of conducting elections.

Referring to the EC's observations that President's rule could be imposed six months after the last sitting of the assembly, if election could not be held before that, the bench said as there was no infraction of mandate to hold election within six months of the last sitting of the assembly, the application of Article 356 does not arise.

The bench said Article 324, however, casts a responsibility and duty on the Election Commission to hold polls at the earliest. Besides Justice Kirpal, the bench comprised Justice V N Khare, Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Arijit Pasayat.

Terming that timely election was an essence of democracy, the bench said ordinarily law and order should not be a ground for deferring holding of election so that the assembly meets again within six months of its dissolution.

The Election Commission was under a constitutional duty to conduct polls at an early date and for that purpose can draw all resources to ensure free and fair elections, the bench said.

Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh said the Supreme Court order vindicated the commission's stand.

Asked whether he felt that the Supreme Court had proved that the EC was absolutely right in deferring elections in Gujarat, he said, "Yes. We like to believe that the Supreme Court itself is convinced that what we did was the right thing."

He, however, did not agree that Gujarat had set a precedent of confrontation between the government and the Election Commission saying, "Gujarat is an aberration."

"In fact, Gujarat has always been a very well behaved state and electorally, we never had any problem (there)," he said.

Hailing the Supreme Court's verdict, opposition parties said their stand on the issue has been vindicated and the BJP's 'conspiracy to play the communal card' in the aftermath of Gujarat violence had been exposed.

The BJP too described the Supreme Court's opinion as a vindication of its view that there was no need for President's rule in the state and said the court had made the Election Commission aware of its constitutional responsibility to hold early polls.

Non-Congress opposition parties said all 'secular and democratic' forces should get together to fight the BJP in the state.

Noting that the decision was a vindication of the stand taken by the Congress in the Supreme Court, party leaders Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi said it showed that ministers who had made strong allegations against the Election Commission needed to be more circumspect.

"From the beginning, it was a conspiracy by the BJP to hold elections using the communal card. The BJP should learn a lesson and not use such ploys again," CPI-M general secretary Harkishan Singh Surjeet said.

Complete Coverage of the Gujarat Polls

Tell us what you think of this report