Telangana High Court
Sardar Ravinder Singh vs The Election Commission Of India on 25 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.5185 of 2025
ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri S. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents
Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel for respondentNos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or
directions more particularly a Writ in the
nature of mandamus declaring the action of the
respondent No.3 assigning serial No.11 to the
petitioner and elevating ineligible person to
serial No.5 and showing the respondent No.4
with a prefix 'Alphores' which is not a honorific
term as such is wholly arbitrary and illegal and
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct
the respondent No.3 to remove the prefix
'Alphores' to the candidature of respondent
No.4 and pass such other order or orders that
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper"
3. The relief indicates that the main grievance of the
petitioner is to the word 'Alphores' which is made as a prefix with
the name of respondent No.4. The petitioner, along with the
petition, filed a representation dated 05.01.2025 (Annexure-P1)
by projecting that this is the representation for the present
grievance. However, the said representation nowhere shows any
light about the aforesaid grievance.
4. It appears that the petitioner has preferred a
representation for the aforesaid grievance which is decided by
memo dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure-P6). This decision appears
to have been taken on second representation of the petitioner
dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure-P4) which is somewhat on the
point. However, the petitioner has not challenged the validity,
legality and propriety of rejection order dated 14.02.2025 in the
relief clause of the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no
doubt, in view of bar envisaged in Article 329(b) of the
Constitution of India and the judgment of Supreme Court in
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency 1, though the scope of interference at this stage is
very limited, it cannot be forgotten that the judgment in N.P.
Ponnuswami (supra) was passed in the year 1952. In the
present days, the Election Petitions are not decided with quite
promptitude. In this backdrop, the petitioner cannot be made
remediless and constitutional Court can interfere at this stage.
6. Sounding a contra note, learned Senior Counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the constitutional bar
(1952) 1 SCC 94
envisaged in Article 329(b) of the Constitution was considered by
a Six-judge Bench of Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami
(supra) and the said judgment is still a good law. Thus, no
interference may be made.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
8. Article 329(b) of the Constitution reads thus:
"329. Bar to interference by courts in
electoral matters.___ Notwithstanding
anything in this Constitution___
(a)the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the allotment
of seats to such constituencies, made or
purporting to be made under article 327 or
article 328, shall not be called in question in
any court;
(b)no election to either House of Parliament
or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State shall be called in question
except by an election petition presented to such
authority and in such manner as may be
provided for by or under any law made by the
appropriate Legislature."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The aforesaid Article came up for consideration in N.P.
Ponnuswami (supra) and the Supreme Court poignantly held in
paragraph Nos.12 and 25 as under:
"12. It seems to me that the word "election"
has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in
the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the
entire procedure to be gone through to return a
candidate to the legislature. The use of the
expression "conduct of elections" in Article 324
specifically points to the wide meaning, and
that meaning can also be read consistently into
the other provisions which occur in Part XV
including Article 329(b). That the word
"election" bears this wide meaning whenever we
talk of elections in a democratic country, is
borne out by the fact that in most of the books
on the subject and in several cases dealing with
the matter, one of the questions mooted is,
when the election begins.
25. The conclusions which I have arrived at
may be summed up briefly as follows:
(1) Having regard to the important
functions which the legislatures have
to perform in democratic countries, it
has always been recognised to be a
matter of first importance that
elections should be concluded as
early as possible according to time
schedule and all controversial
matters and all disputes arising out
of elections should be postponed till
after the elections are over, so that
the election proceedings may not be
unduly retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle,
the scheme of the election law in this
country as well as in England is that
no significance should be attached to
anything which does not affect the
"election"; and if any irregularities are
committed while it is in progress and
they belong to the category or class
which, under the law by which
elections are governed, would have
the effect of vitiating the "election"
and enable the person affected to call
it in question, they should be brought
up before a Special Tribunal by
means of an election petition and not
be made the subject of a dispute
before any court while the election is
in progress."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Learned counsel for the parties fairly informed us that
the election process is in full swing and voting is scheduled on
27.02.2025. In view of constitutional bar and settled law at this
stage, no interference of this Court is warranted. However, this
order will not come in the way of the petitioner to file appropriate
proceedings/election petition, if he still feels aggrieved by the
election results.
11. With these observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 25.02.2025
Myk/Tsr
