M BAGA REDDY Vs. SONIA GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Indian National Congress is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such a writ petition will be maintainable is the question involved in this application.

(2.) The petitioner herein contested for Member of Parliament from Medak Constituency in 1999. He lost his election. According to the petitioner the Indian National Congress being a political party of National importance should give full status as Pradesh Congress Committee to the Telangana region comprising of 10 districts and consequently a direction shall be given to the State Election Commission to accord recognition thereto. The petitioner has traced the history of the creation of State of Andhra Pradesh and inter alia contends that as even in terms of the amended Constitution Indian National Congress, it continues to show Andhra State as one of the Pradesh Congress Committees. By ignoring the case of Telangana region the possibility of the movement for a separate Telangana State may get momentum.

(3.) Mr. Kannabiran the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submitted that the Indian National Congress being the oldest Congress party would be amenable to writ jurisdiction on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel would submit that Constitution of the Pradesh Congress Committees ignoring the claim of the Telangana region violates the equality concept envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel would urge that activities of a political party of the nature of Indian National Congress must be held to be within the public sphere and it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted that political parties have been given Constitutional recognition in terms of 10th Schedule of the Constitution and as such the internal affairs of the party cannot be said to be a private affair. Mr. Kannabiran would urge that a political party must so regulate its procedure in terms of Constitutional commitments and thus if it fails to take any action in relation thereto, a writ of mandamus would issue. By way of example, the learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the expanded sphere of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court even may interfere in relation to criminalisation of politics. In support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607, Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645 and Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412.