Supreme Court Affirms Courts’ Duty to Intervene in Election Matters Amid Unjust Executive Actions
The Supreme Court of India has recently clarified its stance on the judiciary’s role in election matters. While the courts generally refrain from interfering in electoral processes, the apex court emphasized that this restraint is not absolute. The court asserted that when there are indications of
“unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field,”
the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but are
“duty-bound to step in.”
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed,
“We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue.”
The court further elaborated on its longstanding practice of maintaining a distance from electoral matters, stating,
“The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof.”
However, the court also warned against the arbitrary use of election powers and emphasized the necessity of timely judicial oversight. It remarked,
“This case constrains the Court to take note of the broader aspect of the lurking danger of authorities concerned using their powers relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter, being complacent, rather over-confident, that the Courts would not interfere.”
Addressing the misconception that the mere passage of time could prevent remedying election-related injustices, the court stated,
“The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that – misconceived.”
The court further emphasized its power to restore the status quo ante, effectively reversing any adverse effects caused by undue delays or systemic issues. It highlighted,
“No litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that there is no inherent barrier preventing High Courts from exercising jurisdiction in matters related to elections. It stated,
“The High Court, being a Constitutional Court, is not, by any stretch of imagination, precluded from issuing a direction of the nature issued by it in the instant case, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when such direction does not violate any statutory provision.”
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring a fair and just electoral process, free from undue influences and unjust executive actions.
