Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Dr. Buta Singh & Others on 20 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 9075/2009 & C.M. Nos. 6643-6644/2009
ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person
versus
DR. BUTA SINGH & OTHERS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N.N. Aggarwal and Mr. Rohit
Gandhi, Advocates for Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent
no.3
Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate for Respondent
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 20.05.2009
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the
fact that the respondent no. 1 had contested the election for Member
of Parliament (Lok Sabha) in 2009 and respondent no. 2 had
contested the election for MLA (for Legislative Assembly) in November,
2008 though they were not entitled to do so. As per the petitioner,
respondent nos. 1 & 2 are Chairman and Member of National
Commission for Scheduled Castes respectively. It is contended that
respondent nos. 1 & 2 are holding office of profit and drawing salary
from the consolidated fund of India. According to the petitioner, the
post of Chairman and Member of the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes have not been exempted under Parliament
(Prevention of disqualification) Act, 1959 as amended by Act 31 of
2006 to contest elections without resigning from their official post. It
is thus prayed inter-alia in the writ petition that respondent nos. 1 &
2 should be declared as ineligible candidates for contesting the
elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly respectively as
also a writ of Quo Warranto be issued terminating the respondent
nos. 1 & 2 from the post of Chairman and Member of National
Commission for Scheduled Castes respectively.
2. We are unable to agree with the contentions of the petitioner.
The eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate to contest elections cannot
be the subject matter of a public interest petition. Moreover, the said
elections, as per the petitioners own averments, are already over.
Appropriate remedies are provided in law to challenge the outcome of
an election as also the eligibility of a candidate contesting an election.
A public interest litigation is not the appropriate remedy for the said
purpose.
3. As held by the Supreme Court in Digvijay Mote Vs. Union of
India, 1993 (4) SCC 175, the conduct of election is in the hands of
Election Commission which has the power of superintendence,
direction and control of elections vested in it as per Article 324 of the
Constitution. This power is not unbridled. Judicial review will still
be permissible, over the statutory body exercising its functions
affecting public law rights. However, questions of conduct of elections
and eligibility of candidates contesting elections cannot be the
subject matter of a public interest litigation. It was held by a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court in S.D. Siddiqui vs. University of
Delhi, Apex Decision (Delhi) 290, that if one wishes to challenge an
election, he should file an election petition, if that is provided under
the relevant statute or rules, and if there is no such provision in any
statute or rule for election petition, then one has to file a civil suit for
this purpose and not a writ petition.
No provision of any statute or the Constitution has been
shown to us to justify and substantiate the contention that
respondent nos. 1 & 2 were not entitled to contest the elections and
consequently were now disqualified from holding the post of
Chairman and Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes
respectively.
4. It is also relevant to refer to a decision of the Delhi High Court
in Devinder Gupta Vs. Union of India, wherein a Division Bench of
this Court held that:
"If we accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a petition for writ
of quo warranto can be filed by anyone even
though he may have no connection with the
appointment of the respondent, then this Court
will be flooded with tens of thousands of
petitions challenging all kinds of appointments
or elections to various posts. Hence, we cannot
accept the submission that in a petition for a
writ of quo warranto the question of locus standi
cannot be raised at all. As already observed
above, the Court no doubt takes a broader view
of locus standi in a writ of quo warranto as
compared to the writs of certiorari and
mandamus, but it is not so broad as to permit
anyone to file such a writ. The objection of locus
standi can be taken even in a writ of quo
warranto."
In the present case the petitioner has not been able to show his
credentials or how he has the locus to file the present petition.
5. There is no merit or substance in the writ petition. The
counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any provision
of law to support its contentions. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. All applications stand disposed of as well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J
MAY 20, 2009
vn
