ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM Vs. CHEIF ELECTION COMMISIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a political party. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is that, against none of the functionaries of the petitioner political party, legal action be taken on the role of each of such functionaries in having forwarded the claims made by individual applicants in Form-6 of the Registration of electors Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". In other words. It cannot therefore be said that if it is found that there is any falsity in Form-6 of individual applicants submitted in bulk by any of the functionaries of the petitioner political party as authorised by the Election Commission, such functionaries shall not be proceeded against legally Mr. N. Jothi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through section 31 of the representation of the People act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "rpa, 1950", and contended that a careful reading of that section would exclude all others, except the person making a statement/declaration which is false, from being proceeded with under that section. According to him, the beginning sentence of that section namely, "if any person makes in connection with", makes it abundantly clear that only the person, who makes a statement/declaration in writing, which is false, etc. . . . . . . can be prosecuted for any such falsity. Under rule 26 of the "the Rules", every application under Section 23 of "rpa 1950" shall be made in duplicate in Form-6, etc. Rule 13 (l) (a) of "the Rules", declares that every claim shall be made for inclusion of names in electoral roll in Form-6. In the prescribed format, only the voter, who wants his name to be included in the electoral roll, has to give the necessary details asked for in that format and therefore it is he, who makes that statement as asked for and also gives the declaration. Therefore, reading Section 31 of "rpa, 1950", Rule 13 (l) (a) of "the rules" and the prescribed format namely, form-6, it is not possible to bring in any other person, other than the person who seeks to get his name included, within the ambit of Section 31 of "rpa, 1950". For the first time, the Election Commission of India had issued detailed guidelines by it's proceedings dated 19-6-2004 to be followed for the revision. Under the guidelines, presenting applications in Form-6 in bulk is permitted and the person so presenting the applications in Form-6 in bulk is called upon to sign a letter in the prescribed format namely, IR-2005-2007. Though the functionaries of the petitioner political party had signed in such forms, yet, signing the form itself would not bring any of the functionaries of the petitioner party within the ambit of Section 31 of "rpa, 1950". Under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no person shall be convicted of any offence, except for violation of a "law" in force. The guidelines referred to above is not "law" legally made namely, either by the Parliament or by the legislature. In any event, the guidelines will not have the force of "law". When the guidelines is neither "law" nor has the force of "law", by reading Section 31 of RPA, 1950", none of the functionaries of the petitioner party shall be legally proceeded with, for any violation of the said section. In expanding his arguments that "law" enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution of India is "law" duly made by the Parliament or the State legislature, learned counsel relied upon a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He also contended that, assuming that the Election Commission is an autonomous body by itself; it can frame it's own guidelines in the revision of electoral rolls and make it's own legal provisions in regard thereto, yet, it cannot do on a subject if it is already an occupied field. In other words, falsity of a claim made in Form 6 is already made an offence under Section 31 of "rpa, 1950" and therefore it is an occupied field. If it is so, then the Election commission of India cannot bring in any other class of persons, not already covered under Section 31 of'rpa, 1950", within the ambit of the said section.

(2.) MR. G. Rajagopalan learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that, it is true that submitting applications in Form-6 in bulk came to be introduced for the first time under the guidelines. According to him, Section 31 of'rpa, 1950" is wide enough to proceed not only against the individual, who files the claim in the prescribed format containing a false statement/declaration, but also the person, who presents that application duly signed by the applicant himself, if it is found to contain any false statement/declaration. Neither the guidelines commencing from paragraph 8. 7. 4 till 8. 7. 5. 1 nor the prescribed format of letter in Form IR-2005-2007, create an offence for the first time and the persons who are presenting such bulk applications are already covered under section 31 of "rpa, 1950". The very object of introducing Section 31 of'rpa, 1950" is to see that no illegality is committed in the preparation of electoral rolls, which in turn would see that a fair election is conducted. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then it would defeat the very object itself namely, the mischief sought to be remedied would be allowed to continue. If the object of introducing section 31 of'rpa, 1950" is had in mind, then the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at all since, if it is so done, it would destroy the concept of a fair preparation of electoral rolls and a free democratic election to be held. Learned senior counsel would then submit that the election commission is the supreme body by itself and subject to the constitutional restrictions, it can, from time to time, issue guidelines with reference to all matters relating to the conduct of elections and such a power is traceable to Part 15 of the Constitution of India. Learned government Pleader appearing for the second respondent adopted the arguments ol the learned senior counsel appearing for the election Commission of India. In W. P. M. P. No. 32943/2005, another political party wanted to get itself impleaded on the ground that public interest is involved in the writ petition; any decision rendered by this Court on the point raised would have a far reaching impact in the preparation of electoral rolls and if the writ petition is allowed on a narrow reading of Section 31 of'rpa, 1950", it will allow persons, who are guilty of violating the process of preparation of electoral rolls, to escape. The petitioner in this petition is represented by a learned senior counsel namely, Mr. R. Viduthalai. We told in open Court that, without going into the merits or otherwise of the rights of the petitioner to get itself impleaded, we would like to have the assistance of Mr. R. Viduthalai learned senior counsel in deciding this case. Mr. R. Viduthalai learned senior counsel agreed. Accordingly, dismissing this W. P. M. P. and requesting Mr. R. Viduthalai learned senior counsel to assist this Court on the legal issue, we heard him. Mr. R. Viduthalai learned senior counsel, who assisted the Court, submitted that it is not as though the petitioner alone has presented bulk applications in form-6 and such a procedure to receive applications in Form-6 in bulk stands permitted throughout the length and breadth of this country. Such authority to present applications in Form-6 in bulk is not only given to a political party but also to the residents of a welfare association or gaon sabha. Therefore if any person who presents bulk applications in Form-6 and if in any or all those applications in Form-6 there is any falsity in the statement/declaration, then the persons who are so presenting would also be liable. Learned senior counsel would also submit that whenever a Statute is read, it must be read in its true spirit and the interpretation of statute should not defeat the object and purpose of the provision itself.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides. Before we proceed to appreciate the rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that it is better to trace the origin of Section 31 of "rpa, 1950". The act came into force on 12-5-1950. As ihe act originally siood. Sections 31 and 32 were not there. Sections 31 and 32 were introduced in "rpa, 1950" by Amending Act 58/ 1958. After Section 30 of the principal Act, sections 31 and 32 were introduced and for our purpose, we extract hereunder Section 31 of "rpa, 1950" as it was originally introduced.