Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently stressed that courts should generally avoid interfering once the election process has begun, reasoning that such interventions could potentially prevent elections from taking place altogether.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah pointed out that the remedy, which is always available to the other side, is by way of an election petition or a civil suit, whatever the case may be after the elections are over. 

Court dismissed a special leave petition against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's October 29, 2024 order, whereby the high court refused to interfere with an election of a society called ‘Guru Singh Sabha’, duly registered under the provisions of MP Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. 

The top court noted the last elections to the Guru Singh Sabha were conducted in the year 2012 and thereafter these elections could not be conducted although the law pertaining to the elections of the Guru Singh Sabha mandated that such elections should take place every year, after the resolution of the General Body. 

In the case, Shri Akal Takhat Saheb appointed one Harpreet Singh Sudan as Chief Election Officer to conduct the elections of Guru Singh Sabha for the year 2024. Initially, the election programme was issued and the final voter list with allotment of symbols was also done by the Election Officer but the date of election could not be announced.

Ultimately, the Chief Election Officer by a notice of September 03, 2024 published the election programme, according to which the objections to the voters list were invited from September 07, 2024 to September 11, 2024 and the final list was to be published on September 12, 2024 and the date for voting was also announced as October 06, 2024. Subsequently, the date was postponed to November 03, 2024 and then rescheduled on November 07, 2024.

The petition before the top court was filed challenging the impugned order of October 29, 2024 by which certain objections raised by one of the members of the Society, had been dismissed by the high court, and directed that the election should take place in accordance with law as scheduled. 

Another writ petition was filed before the top court challenging the order of the Election Commissioner. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy available under the law after the elections are over. That order attained finality. 

"In spite of this, it is a matter of regret that petitions were still filed and all efforts have been made to stall the election process which is already on. This is in direct violation of the settled law which has been laid down by this court in a catena of decisions," the bench said.

It further asserted, "From the record, it is very clear that the election of Shri Guru Singh Sabha, which has to take place every year, subject to the Resolution of the General Body Meeting, has not taken place for the last more than 12 years. The last election was held in the year 2012. Now the election process has already started and the notification had already been given and the election is to take place on November 7, 2024".

The bench cited judgments of the top court in N P Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer, Namakka Constituency And Others reported in (1952) and Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr Vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors reported in (1978), which is that when the election process has begun, no order should normally be passed by the courts interfering with the election. 

"In the present case also, we are of the opinion that both the writ petition and the writ appeal have been disposed of in accordance with law, as the logic of the court being that, once the elections have been notified, the courts should not interfere with the matter. In these circumstances, we see absolutely no reason to interfere in the matter," the bench said, dismissing the plea.

Case Title: Mandeep Singh & Anr Vs Collector & Ors