Read Time: 06 minutes
All India Trinamool Congress' Saket Gokhale argued that since NPP had violated the electoral rules, necessary punitive action should have been inflicted by the Election Commission which, however, failed to do so.
The Meghalaya High Court recently dismissed the plea filed by the Spokesperson of the All India Trinamool Congress Saket Gokhale seeking action against the National People's Party (NPP) for violation of electoral rules.
Gokhale had alleged that NPP violated Rule 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 by not filing its election expenditure report within 75 days of the completion of the State Assembly Elections 2018.
Gokhale's plea was opposed by the counsel for NPP who argued that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.
While referring to Article 329(b) of the Constitution, he asserted that a constitutional bar exists against interference by Courts in electoral matters.
He further contended that the bar to interference includes all matters directly or incidentally connected with the electoral process, which is already underway in the State of Meghalaya, whereby elections to the Legislative Assembly, have been notified on January 18, 2023.
Moreover, he questioned the "inordinate delay and laches" allegedly by which the preset plea was hit. "The filing of election expenditure report relates to 2018, whereas, the writ petitioner has instituted the present writ petition only in 2022, without providing any explanation for the delay in preferring the same," he submitted.
In light of the same, he alleged that Gokhale moved the present plea actuated by political motive, immediately prior to the 2023 elections, at the behest of the political party, to which he belongs.
On the contrary, the senior counsel appearing for Gokhale apprised the court that when Gokhale learned that NPP had not filed the election expenditure statements for several elections, including the Meghalaya Assembly Elections of 2018, he filed the present plea.
On the grounds of maintainability, he submitted that Article 329 would not be attracted, as no election had been called into question., therefore, the filing of the instant writ petition will not have the effect of interrupting or obstructing the election proceedings.
He further stated that delay was not a factor in the present case as there was no question of delay, but a question of compliance.
The court held that "Article 329 bars the interference by Courts in electoral matters....except where the assistance of the Court is sought merely to correct or smoothen the progress of election proceedings, or to remove the obstacles that may stall an election process".
Court further opined that non-compliance of Rule 16A, therefore, will come within a wider ambit, which will necessarily include the purport of Article 324 of the Constitution, as also the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Further, stressing that the election process had already been set in motion, the court held that "therefore, apart from a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, no other forum can adjudicate in such matters".
Accordingly, court held that the dispute raised by Gokhale will not be entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution specifically with the electoral process already underway.
Case Title: Shri. Saket S. Gokhale Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Statue: Rule 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968; Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
Please Login or Register
