Bombay HC Stops Akola Bypoll As MLA's Term Will Be Under A Year.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court held, that as the elected member would serve for less than a year from the announcement of the by-election results, the Akola West Assembly by-election could be postponed.

Following the decision of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court this week, the Election Commission of India (ECI) decided to withhold the notification by which it had declared a by-election in Akola West Assembly Constituency of Maharashtra. The by-election was to be held on April 26.

Justices Anil Kilor and MS Jawalkar‘s bench held that since an elected member will get less than a year’s term from when the by-election results are declared, the Akola West Assembly by-election can be postponed.The bench nullified the notification issued by the ECI on March 16.

The bench heard a petition filed by Akola businessman Anil Dubey, who had taken an exception to the Election Commission of India’s notification declaring a bypoll in Akola West . The seat became vacant when BJP leader Gowardhan Mangilal Sharma, also called Lalaji, who won on October 24, 2019, passed away on November 3, 2023. Maharashtra’s elected members were due to finish their terms on November 25, 2024.

However, in December 2023, the Bombay High Court admonished the ECI for its failure to conduct a by-election for the Pune Lok Sabha constituency following the demise of Member of Parliament (MP) Girish Bapat on March 29, 2023.The ECI challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court, leading to a suspension of the high court’s decision.

During Dubey’s plea hearing, the Nagpur bench focused on interpreting proviso (a) to Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Advocate Neerja Choube, representing the ECI, pointed out the ongoing Pune by-election matter before the Supreme Court and suggested that the high court could delay its decision until a verdict is reached in that case.

However, advocates AA Naik and JB Gandhi, representing Dubey, opposed the submission and pointed to the proviso in the Representation of People Act, which says that nothing contained in Section 151-A shall apply if the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year.

The petitioner argues that “remainder of term” in proviso (a) to Section 151-A refers to the remaining term available for the elected member in the by-election. However, the ECI argues that the one-year period should commence from the date of the vacancy.

After reviewing the arguments, the bench stated,

”As there is a period of less than one year remaining as a balance term for an incoming member from the date of declaration of the result of the by-election, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned notification issued by the ECI is contrary to proviso (a) to Section 151-A of the Act of 1951″.