K NARASIMHA NALDU Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise a common complaint regarding the directives issued by the Election Commission of India in its proceedings No.3/4/2001/JS.II dated, 31-1-2001 as being arbitrary, illegal and) violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to dispense with the production of documentary evidence of identity of the voters at the time of casting the votes by the voters who do not possess such documents in the current bye-elections of Giddalur-123 and Badvel-155 Assembly Constituencies scheduled on 19-2-2001.

(2.) Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contends that these directives are without any jurisdiction as being ultra vires of the Representation People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and the Rules under the caption The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The learned Senior Counsel has adverted our attention to Section 62 of the Act to stress his point that every person whose name is enlisted in the Voters' List is entitled as of right to exercise his franchise and such a right is unfettered and cannot be scuttled by any act of the Election Commission or otherwise and that such an attempt would violate the constitutional right of the voter to exercise his franchise which is the essence of the democracy by which this nation is governed. He makes us to survey the provisions of the Act as also the Rules and submits that there is absolutely no power to the Election Commission to issue a sort of guidelines as assailed in these writ petitions. Learned Counsel submits that taking of steps to avoid impersonation of voters is a welcome measure and that Rule 35 which has been framed to achieve the said objective serves the purpose and the impugned directives run contra to the said Rules and are unsustainable. He cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillar in support of his proposition that the Election Commission cannot transgress its limits stated in Article 324 of Indian Constitution, the Act and the Rules made thereunder and adverts our attention to what is stated by the Supreme Court in paragraph-25 of the judgment which reads:

(3.) Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. C.P. Sarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submits that the directives issued are not in conflict with the objectives to be achieved in the shape of issuing of Electronic Photo Identity Cards (for short 'EPIC Cards'), but cent percent issuance of such identity cards could not be achieved for various reasons beyond the control of the officials of the Election Commission as some voters have died and some voters have migrated and by way of abundant caution and to ensure that such persons who have missed the EPIC cards would exercise their franchise and for proper identification of such persons who could not obtain EPIC cards, the supplemental steps were taken for proper identification of voters and to avoid impersonation, several such documents/ certificates are made permissible to identify the voters and that not only rich and middle class but the poor and generally speaking all the sections of the Society can avail of the said method of proof of identification and that the officials of the polling booths will accept any sort of identification and even certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer and directives have been issued in the best interests of maintaining democratic norms and not otherwise and that such directives are by no means ultra vires the Act and Rules or arbitrary. Mr. C.P. Sarathy also draws our attention to Rule 37 of the Rules stating that it is not that persons having EPIC cards are automatically allowed to exercise their franchise and that such persons who do not carry EPIC cards are subjected to scrutiny to the satisfaction of the Polling Officer and are disentitled to exercise their franchise and that the same method is also directed to be adopted in the directives which are assailed in these writ petitions and by no means there is any discriminatory procedure followed and that the directives stand to the scrutiny of Article 14 of Indian Constitution.