Court dismisses petitions challenging reservation in municipal elections, citing Article 243-ZG of the Constitution
In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed the constitutional prohibition on judicial interference in electoral matters once the election process has commenced. The decision came in response to a series of writ petitions challenging the reservation and re-lottery process initiated by the State Election Commission for the upcoming municipal elections in Rajasthan.
The petitions, filed by Harish Kumar, Ganpat Lal, Bhagwan Singh Mertiya, and others, sought to quash and set aside the re-lottery and reservation decisions made by the District Election Officer and District Collector of Jalore. The petitioners argued that the reservation policy was not applied proportionally to the population, and that the election process had not officially commenced, thus allowing for judicial intervention.
However, the court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, dismissed the petitions, citing the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG, which restricts court interference in electoral processes. Justice Dhand referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, which established that once the election programme is declared by the Election Commission, the courts are barred from intervening.
The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the electoral schedule and avoiding any disruptions that could retard or protract the election process. The court also noted the binding nature of precedents set by larger benches, affirming that the Constitution Bench's decision in N.P. Ponnuswami takes precedence over conflicting judgments by smaller benches.
In delivering the verdict, Justice Dhand reiterated the principles of judicial discipline, stressing that a bench of lesser quorum cannot overrule a decision made by a larger bench. This principle was underscored by the Supreme Court in the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community case, which the High Court cited to support its decision.
The Rajasthan State Election Commission had already declared the election schedule for 309 municipalities, with key dates set for nominations, withdrawals, polling, and result declarations. The court's decision ensures that this schedule will proceed without judicial intervention, upholding the constitutional mandate for timely and uninterrupted electoral processes.
The dismissal of the petitions highlights the judiciary's commitment to respecting the constitutional framework governing elections, ensuring that disputes are addressed through appropriate electoral tribunals after the election process concludes.
Bottom Line :
Election process once initiated upon declaration by the Election Commission cannot be interfered with by the Court due to the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, Rajasthan Municipalities Election Rules, Rule 10 of the Election Rules
Harish Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc id # 2969134
