CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 23rd March, 2011, a Bench of this Court took suo motu cognizance of the news item published in the newspaper, namely, "The Hindu" dated 23rd March, 2011, wherein certain statements made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu alleging excessive restrictions imposed by the Election Commission. The Bench, therefore, formulated certain issues for consideration and directed the Registry to register it as writ petition and again place it before that Bench on 28th March, 2011. Today, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter has been placed before this Bench (presided over by the Chief Justice).

(2.) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, we would like to express our view with regard to the power of the Hon'ble Judges in initiating writ proceeding suo motu. There is no dispute that initiation of writ proceeding suo motu, in public interest, is within the competence of every Hon'ble Judge of this Court, which is the integral part of the constitutional scheme. But, such power is required to be exercised and regulated in accordance with the rules made by the High Court and the norms set keeping in view the administrative instructions issued and roster of sitting prepared by the Chief Justice. While exercising suo motu power of exercising public interest litigation, self-restraint and judicious exercise is expected to be borne in mind. It would be appreciated that as and when any matter of public importance is sought to be brought to the notice of the Court, a reference may be made to the Chief Justice for initiation of action. After such reference is made by any Hon'ble Judge to the Chief Justice for initiation of action, the Chief Justice will examine the matter according to the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court and after the matter is examined, the same can be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with the directive issued in that regard by the Chief Justice for further necessary action. While exercising power of initiating suo motu writ proceeding in public interest, great care and caution should be taken by the Hon'ble Judge, keeping in mind the directions and observations made by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. It would not be proper that as and when any news item is published in the newspaper, the Court will take notice of such news item and treat the same as writ petition suo motu in public interest without referring the matter to the Chief Justice.

(3.) THE issue is fully covered by two Constitutional Bench judgments of the Supreme Court, and therefore, the question is no longer res integra. THE first Constitutional Bench judgment is in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64. In that case the nomination paper of a candidate for the Madras Legislative Assembly from Namakkal Constituency was rejected by the Returning Officer after scrutiny. THE said rejection order was challenged by way writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. THE High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer by reason of the provisions contained under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. In the SLP filed by the candidate it was argued that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not affected by Article 329(b) of the Constitution. It was argued that the word 'election' as used in Article 329(b) means what is normally and etymologically means the result of polling for the final selection of the candidate. Hence, the action of the Returning Officer in returning the nomination paper can be questioned before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Negativing the argument the Constitutional Bench firstly held: