(1993) 08 SC CK 0004
In The Supreme Court of India
Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 384 to 386 of 1993
Digvijay Mote (Appellant)
Vs
Union of India (UOI) and Others (Respondent)
Date of Decision: 16-08-1993
Bench: Division Bench
Hon'ble Judges: M. N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.; S. Mohan, J.
Final Decision: Dismissed
Citations:
(1993) 5 JT 1; (1993) 3 SCALE 461; (1993) 4 SCC 175; (1993) 1 SCR 553 Supp
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=268315
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be a social worker and observer of the electoral process, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking wide-ranging directions relating to electoral reforms, postponement of elections in disturbed states, and restriction on the powers of the current government. He alleged violations of Articles 14 and 19 due to exclusion of certain states like Assam, Punjab, and Jammu & Kashmir from representation in Parliament during certain periods.
Law Points Raised:
1. Scope and extent of Election Commission's powers under Article 324.
2. Judicial review over the decisions of the Election Commission.
3. Whether postponement of elections in disturbed areas is constitutional.
4. Applicability of natural justice to decisions under Article 324.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 19, 32, 324, 327, 328, 329.
Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951.
Relevant judicial precedents interpreting Article 324.
Judgements Referred:
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952 SCR 218);
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner;
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain;
Virendra v. State of Punjab (1958 SCR 308);
Harishankar Bagla v. State of M.P. (1955) 1 SCR 380.
Obiter Dicta:
Article 324 is a plenary provision granting the Election Commission wide powers to ensure free and fair elections. However, such powers are not absolute and remain subject to judicial review and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi:
While the Election Commission has broad powers under Article 324 to conduct elections, including the power to postpone them in disturbed areas, these powers must be exercised in accordance with the rule of law, fairly, and without arbitrariness. Judicial review is permissible if these powers are misused.
Final Ruling:
The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the powers exercised under Article 324 were within constitutional limits and that postponement of elections in disturbed areas like Assam and Jammu & Kashmir was justified.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers:
Paras: 6-14 (interpretation of Article 324 and judicial review scope).
Summary:
This case reaffirmed the authority of the Election Commission to take necessary measures under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections, including postponement in disturbed areas, but clarified that such powers are subject to the principles of natural justice and judicial review in cases of abuse.