P DHAMAYANTHI Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA; STATE OF TAMIL NADU; TAMIL NADU STATE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER; ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM; DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM; PUBLISHER, JUNIOR VIKATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, designed as a 'Public Interest Litigation', has been filed by one P.Dhamayanthi, a practising dvocate. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare the Parliamentary Election held on 24.04.2014 for the 39 constituencies of Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional and re-election may be held after taking necessary preventive measures to curb the payment of money to the voters by the political parties, within a stipulated time specified under law. The petitioner further seeks for a direction upon the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu, respondents 2 and 3, to take all necessary steps to maintain law and order without giving any element of scope for damaging any public property, any attack on people or institution, as the present atmosphere is not conducive.

(2.) Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended that there are several press reports, by which, it is clear that the voters were bribed by various political parties and money had flown and in this regard, certain paper cuttings and newspaper reports have been filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers. Referring to the statement said to have been made by the Chief Electoral Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegation that money was paid to the voters is evident and therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has to be granted.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the materials placed on record, it has to be pointed out that at this stage of the matter, writ petition cannot be maintained. The law on this aspect has been well settled as early as in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami -vs- The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and others, 1952 AIR(SC) 64, wherein it has been held that once the electoral process had begun, the writ Court should not interdict the same. In the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar, 2000 8 SCC 216their Lordships considered the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue interim direction after commencement of electoral process. After taking into consideration of the decisions of the Constitution Bench in N.P.Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namkkal Constituency, 1952 AIR(SC) 64and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 1 SCC 405, the Supreme Court held as hereunder: -