VIPLAV SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a practising lawyer, inter alia, praying for the reliefs as under:-

(2.) This petition is filed in public interest and is styled as a public interest litigation. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the Election Commission of India that the issue involved in the instant petition has been examined by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its decision in the Writ Petition Nos. 3346, 3633, 4417, 4454, 4466, 4945, 5077, 6038 and 6039 of 2001. It appears that in all nine petitions were filed by different political parties and individuals, inter alia, challenging the provisions contained in Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act,1951 (hereinafter referred to as ¢ ¢â ¬ …â the Act ¢ ¢â ¬ ). By a well reasoned and detailed judgment running into 68 pages, the High Court of Madras held that the provisions are not ultra vires. The matter did not end there. We find from the papers supplied by the learned counsel for the Election Commission of India that the matter was carried before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 2824-2825/2001 titled All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another. On 23.4.2001 the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions by passing the following order:-

(3.) It is required to be noted that the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras as well as the decision of the Apex Court were not brought to our notice by the petitioner and the petitioner states that he was not aware of those decisions as the same were not reported nor was he a party in those proceedings and therefore, he was not aware of them.