Madras High Court
M.L.Ravi vs The Commissioner on 2 March, 2022
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
M.L.Ravi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal nehru Road, Opp CMBT
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.
2. The President
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Anna Arivalayam
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018.
3. The State President
Bharathiya Janatha Party
Kamalalayam
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to
disqualify the candidates put up by the 2nd and 3rd respondent
nominated by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Bharathiya Janatha
___________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
Party respectively. To disqualify their respective candidature for being
elected as Corporation/Municipality/Town Panchayats Ward/ Councilor
member in their respective ward/Council member election held on
19.02.2022 by the 1st respondent and withdraw the certificate if
issued on results.
For the Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan
For the Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
Advocate General
Asstd.by
Mr.S.Sivashanmugam
Standing Counsel
for Respondent 1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first
respondent to disqualify the candidates of respondent Nos.2 and 3
nominated by Dravida Munnetra Khazagam and Bharathiya Janata
Party for being elected as Corporation / Municipality /Town
Panchayats / Ward/Council Member in their respective Ward/Council
Member election held on 19.02.2022.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
2. The writ petition has been filed precisely on the ground that
despite the bar for campaigning 24 hours prior to the date of
election, the two parties made advertisement in the print media
within the restricted time and therefore, they should be disqualified,
even if the result has been declared.
3. A reference to Section 126 of the Representation of People
Act, 1951 has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of his arguments. It is despite the fact that the election in
question was not covered by the Representation of People Act, 1951
but covered by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
The reference to Section 126 of the Act of 1951 has been made
without taking note of the fact that the same is not applicable to the
election in question.
4. The petitioner, however, made a reference to the
guidelines/directions issued by the Election Commission prohibiting
the campaign after 6.00 pm on 17.02.2022, which are quoted
hereunder for ready reference:
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
“Regarding Urban Local Body Election, it is
informed that all political parties and candidates are
permitted to campaign through Television, Radio, Digital
and Social Media till 6.00 pm today (17.02.2022).
Therefore, it is informed that campaigning after 6.00 pm
through Television, Radio, Digital and Social Media is not
permitted.”
5. A perusal of the directions quoted above do not show a
prohibition for advertising in the print media, rather prohibition is
only for campaigning through Television, Radio, Digital and Social
Media etc.
6. Even under Section 126 of the Representation of People
Act, 1951, the prohibition of similar nature exists, but not on print
media. At this stage, it would be gainful to refer to Section 56-C of
the Act of 1920, which is applicable to this case. Section 56-C of the
Act of 1920 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"Section 56-C: - Prohibition of public meetings on the day
preceding the election day and on the election day:
(1) No person shall convene, hold or attend any public
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
meeting within the Municipality within twenty four hours
before the date of commencement of the poll or on the date or
dates on which a poll is taken for an election.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to
two hundred and fifty rupees."
7. The restrictions imposed under Section 56-C is that no
person shall convene, hold or attend any public meeting within the
Municipality, within 24 hours before the date of commencement of
the poll or on the date or dates on which the poll is taken for
election. The provision aforesaid does not restrict the
advertisement, rather, the public meetings within the municipality.
Thus, we do not find that any violation of the provisions of the Act
of 1920 has been made.
8. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
has made a reference to the order of a Division Bench of this Court,
on the issue. It is in the case of G.Muthukumar v. The State
Chief Election Commissioner [W.P.(MD).No.8613 of 2019
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
dated 11.04.2019]. It is a case where the petition filed by a
candidate seeking permission to telecast his election campaign in
Cable TV was not permitted.
9. In the instant case, the State Election Commission has
imposed restrictions on advertisement through electronic and social
media and the case was falling under the purview of the Act.
Therefore, the decision in G.Muthukumar supra, which was not in
reference to the advertisement in the print media, is not applicable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the above decision
without taking note of the facts of the said case.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to how
the writ petition is maintainable, as, the election can be challenged
only by way of an election petition as per Article 243ZG of the
Constitution of India. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of K.Venkatachalam v. A.Swamickan [Appeal (Civil)
No.1719 of 1986 dated 26.04.1999], learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the writ petition is maintainable.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
11. In the case of K.Venkatachalam supra, since the
nomination was made in violation of Articles 191 and 193 of the
Constitution of India, the writ was entertained. However, in the
instant case, the allegation is with regard to the violation of Section
126 of the Act of 1951, which is not applicable to this election.
Therefore, the said decision is also not applicable to the instant
case.
12. In view of the above, we find that the writ petition is not
maintainable for challenging the result of the election and
otherwise, even on merit, we do not find any case in favour of the
writ petitioner. Rather, the writ petition has been filed without
analysing the legal issue and even referring to the judgments
without taking note of the facts of the case and whether it would be
applicable to the present case or not.
13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
Services Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The Registrar Judicial is directed to see the compliance
of the order, and, if it is not made, the matter may be placed before
the Court for taking appropriate steps for compliance.
Consequently, W.M.P.No.4700 of 2022 is also dismissed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
02.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
To:
The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal nehru Road, Opp CMBT
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(kpl/drm)
W.P.No.4553 of 2022
02.03.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
