Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3442 (ALL)

Ajmal Khan v. Election Commission of India

2016-10-07

ANANT KUMAR, NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sri Narayan Shukla, J.) Heard Mr. Ajmal Khan, the petitioner in person, Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate as well as Mr. Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 2. The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 05.09.2016 issued from the Information and Public Relation Office, State of U.P. whereby the Hon'ble Chief Minister had proposed to start Samajwadi Smart Phone Scheme and has also prayed for issuing a mandamus to restrain public authorities/functionaries of the State from making announcement in the nature of allurement of voters so as to affect free and fair election which is due in the first half of the year 2017. 3. The present writ petition has been filed in the fashion of Public Interest Litigation. It has been submitted that the Chief Election Officer, State of U.P. had issued press notice dated 07.09.2016 to the effect that preparation of holding the General Election shall begin from 15 September 2017. Since the election for the the next assembly is due in the month of March, 2017, the declaration impugned amounts to alluring the voters to vote in favour of the political party from which the Chief Minister was elected in the Election of 2012. The acts of the Chief Minister are public acts as he holds the public office, therefore he shall hold the certain accountability for the act done or duties performed. He certainly has an opportunity to abuse or misuse the office, therefore the purpose of issuing notification impugned must be genuine not for motivating the voters towards any particular political party. 4. In support of his submission he has cited a decision in the case of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain 1997 (1) SCC 35 . In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the Minister holds public office though he gets constitutional status and performs functions under the constitution, law or executive policy. The acts done and duties performed are public acts or duties as the holder of public office. Therefore, he owes certain accountability for the acts done or duties performed. In a democratic society governed by rule of law, power is conferred on the holder of the public office or the authority concerned by the Constitution by virtue of appointment. The acts done and duties performed are public acts or duties as the holder of public office. Therefore, he owes certain accountability for the acts done or duties performed. In a democratic society governed by rule of law, power is conferred on the holder of the public office or the authority concerned by the Constitution by virtue of appointment. The holder of the office, therefore, gets opportunity to abuse or misuse the office. The politician who holds public office must perform public duties with the sense of purpose, and a sense of direction, under rules or sense of priorities. The purpose must be genuine in a free democratic society governed by the rule of law to further socio-economic democracy. The executive Government should frame its policies to maintain the social order, stability, progress and morality. All actions of the Government are performed through/by individual persons in collective or joint or individual capacity. Therefore, they should morally be responsible for their actions." "17. The court, therefore, would be required to consider whether the policy sought to be relied on and directed by the Minister was to further public good or was a means to fritter away the public property for personal gain or to misuse public power............." 5. Mr. H.K. Bhat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the same question had been discussed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 21017 (MB) of 2016 in which the petitioner of the present writ petition himself was the petitioner, he had filed the writ petition alleging therein that the respondent No.4 Samajwadi Party in the General Election of the Legislative Assembly of the State of U.P. held in 2012 promulgated a manifesto with a view to influence voters to cast their votes in favour of the said party, declaring false promise knowingly, which amounts to a corrupt practice. This Court further held that in order to ensure fairness and purity and streamlining of any procedure, the Election Commission of India can be called upon by this Court to invoke its authority under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to take such preventive or reformative measures that the Commission may find necessary to avoid any such malady and prevent the political parties from deliberately promising something which otherwise, may not be constitutionally permissible for them to do so. With this observation this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Election Commission of India for any such redressal along with his suggestions. 6. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that similarly in this matter also the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Election Commission of India for adopting any such preventive measure to hold free and fair election as is needed under the law. 7. In the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2013) 9 SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: - "67. The concepts of livelihood and standard of living are bound to change in their content from time to time. It is factual that what was once considered to be a luxury has become a necessary in the present day. It is well settled that the concept of livelihood is no longer confined to bare physical survival in terms of food, clothing and shelter but also not necessarily includes basic medicines, preliminary education, transport, etc. Hence, the State distrusting largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, etc. to eligible and deserving persons is directly related to the directive principles of the State policy. 68. As as result, we are not inclined to agree, with the argument of the appellant that giving of colour TVS, laptops, mixer-grinders, etc. by the Government after adhering to due process is not an expense for public purpose. Judicial interference is permissible when the action of the Government is unconstitutional and not when such action is not wise or that the extent of expenditure is not for the good of the State. We are of the view that all such questions must be debated and decided in the legislature and not in Court." 8. This was the case of distribution of free gift by the political parties in releasing the election manifesto for the assembly election 2006, the political party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) announced a scheme of free distribution of colour television sets (CTVs) to each and every household. 9. After giving thoughtful consideration of the submissions of the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, we are of the view that since the petitioner has failed to place any such provision which bars to make such declaration as has been made in the matter, no interference of this Court is warranted. 10. 9. After giving thoughtful consideration of the submissions of the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, we are of the view that since the petitioner has failed to place any such provision which bars to make such declaration as has been made in the matter, no interference of this Court is warranted. 10. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed. However, keeping in view the petitioner's enthusiasm in conducting the free and fair election, we hereby give him liberty to suggest some preventive measures to the Election Commission of India or the Chief Election Officer of the State to be adopted for conducting the election fairly.