Consider the following statements with reference to the Election Petit...
The Election Commission of India (ECI) recently invoked Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial intervention in the working of the commission in the middle of the election process.
- About Article 329(b):
- Enshrined in Part XV of the Constitution, Articles 324-329 specifically discuss elections.
- While Article 324 gives the poll panel powers to direct and control elections, Article 329, which has two clauses, concerns itself with the role of the judiciary in electoral matters.
- Article 329(a) says the “judiciary is not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of laws relating to the boundaries of electoral districts or the allocation of seats.
- Article 329(b) as amended by the Constitution (19th Amendment) Act, 1966, provides that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be called into questionexcept by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any lawmade by the appropriate Legislature.
- It stipulates that election-related inquiries are exclusively addressed through election petitions presented to the authority designated by that law.
- The Representation of the People Act, 1951, furthers this clause as it empowers the High courts to hear and decide election petitions.
- A decision in such petitions can be challenged in the Supreme Court (SC).
- SC Rulings:
- In the 1952 Ponnuswamy judgment (Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal), the SC held that the word “election” in Article 329(b) connotes the entire electoral process commencing with the issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered with at any intermediary stage by courts.
- The SC in K. Venkatachalam vs. A.Swamickan (1999) determined that Article 329(b) is inapplicable if the matter pertains to Articles 191 and 193, which deal with disqualifications and penalties related to parliamentary and legislative assembly membership, respectively.
Hence only statement 2 is correct.
Consider the following statements with reference to the Election Petit...
Understanding Election Petitions in India
Election petitions in India are a crucial part of the electoral process, allowing for the challenge of election results. Let’s analyze the statements in question:
Statement 1: High Courts' Jurisdiction
- The Constitution does not empower High Courts to hear election petitions.
- Instead, the election petitions related to parliamentary and assembly elections are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the High Court of the respective states as per Article 329B of the Constitution.
- Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
Statement 2: Appeal to the Supreme Court
- A decision made by the High Court on an election petition can indeed be challenged in the Supreme Court.
- This is provided under Article 136, which allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, or order of any High Court.
- Thus, this statement is correct.
Conclusion
- Since Statement 1 is incorrect and Statement 2 is correct, the answer to the question is option 'B': 2 only.
This understanding is essential for grasping the framework of electoral laws in India, especially for those preparing for competitive examinations like UPSC.
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.