Allahabad HC Exercises Judicial Activism Over State Government Regarding Panchayat Elections

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

State Government order dated 05.09.2015  notified that in Three-tier Panchayat Elections, the proceedings for reservation and allotment of seats for Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat; members, Kshetra Panchayat and member of Zila Panchayat would continue as per the time-table notified for the same, whereas, the proceedings for reservation and allotment of seats for the Gram Panchayats be kept in abeyance till further orders were passed.

To this, the petitioner raised objection regarding the list of allotment and reservation of seats. Further, there was no justification for postponing the elections of Gram Panchayat and in the three-tier system, without the election of Gram Panchayat, the constitution of Kshetra and Zila Panchayat was not possible.

Relief by way of writ in the nature of Mandamus was sought commanding the respondents to reframe the reservation of territorial constituencies of Zila panchayat to which State raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ and gave the reference of the case of Rishipal Singh v/s State of Bihar where court said that  In view of the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution, it would not be appropriate or proper for the Court to entertain the petition once the electoral process has been initiated. Hence, we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on that ground. further, the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of  L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others was noted to observe that the power of judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and, therefore, constitutes part of its basic structure. Subject to the inherent limitation on the scope of the exercise of power of High Court under Article 226, in matters relating to holding of elections, the Court was of the considered opinion that the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution would not be a bar on the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts under Article 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India.

Questions Raised

  • Whether, the constitutional remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been recognised as a basic feature of the constitution in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, could be curtailed in view of the bar created under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India?
  • Whether, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be refused to be entertained for the reason that a notification for holding the Panchayat elections has been issued by the State in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, even where:
    • vires of election laws are questioned,
    • Government Orders issued for effecting the election are stated to be in breach of election laws/arbitrary,
    • actual implementation by the State of election laws/Government Orders is stated to be in breach of the provisions,
    • any other similar issue?
  • Whether the High Court in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the election process, if the elections are not being held in accordance with the Constitution of India or there is inherent defects or breaches of the election law making the entire election a mockery or a farce?
  • Whether, this Court would permit the ongoing process of election, in the facts of the present case, or not?
  • Whether, the vires of the election laws, as well as reservation of seats, can be subjected to challenge only in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or else the aggrieved person is rendered remedy less?

Decision of the Court

Court said that if the very process of holding election or implementation of reservation under the Rules, in respect of the various constituencies of Zila Panchayat has to be challenged, then the only remedy available to a person, not belonging to the reserved category in question for which the seat has been reserved, is to file petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has no remedy elsewhere. His challenge to the process of the reservation may ultimately succeed or may not succeed, is a different issue, but it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition raising such issue, in our opinion, have to be entertained, notwithstanding the bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Allahabad-HC-Exercises-Judicial-Activism_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -