The Hindu : Front Page : Holding Karnataka elections by due date is mandatory

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 29, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Holding Karnataka elections by due date is mandatory

Special Correspondent

In 1973-74, Rule 24 was used in U.P. and Orissa, after delimitation, to conduct polls in record time

But [a] man made situation intended to defer [the] holding of elections should be sternly dealt with, says Supreme Court in its 2002 ruling
Karnataka’s administration under President’s Rule has no choice but to gear up and deliver

Chennai: The Election Commission of India’s resolve to go all out to conduct Assembly elections in Karnataka in May 2008, within six months of the premature dissolution of the House notwithstanding delimitation, is based on two key factors – Rule 24 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and a strong and unambiguous 2002 Supreme Court decision. Any political attempt to have the Karnataka contest put off by several months, possibly to November when elections will be held in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh, on the argument that delimitation has made it impossible to prepare the electoral rolls by the due date, will come up against these two strong factors.

President’s Rule was promulgated in Karnataka on November 20, 2007 and the Assembly was dissolved on November 28. Interestingly, the Delimitation Commission’s order redefining parliamentary and Assembly constituencies was issued in July 2007 but was given effect to only on February 19, 2008 through a presidential order. Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, and Jharkhand were exempted from the scope of the notification but Karnataka was not.

First, as a leader published in this newspaper on February 26 pointed out, the special provision of Rule 24 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 enables ’cut and paste’ from the existing rolls to the new situation, thus ensuring that the process of revision of the electoral rolls (with January 1, 2008 as the qualifying date) can be completed in time.

It turns out that such a course will not be anything new. In 1973-74, Rule 24 was used in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous State, and Orissa under comparable circumstances – and in a pre-computerised age, when all the hard work had to be manually done. The delimitation order for both States came in December 1973 and the Commission ensured, quite remarkably, that the electoral rolls for the newly delimited constituencies were ready in time for the electoral process to begin in January 1974. With the process going like clockwork, Assembly elections were held in both States in February and the results declared so that the target dates in March could be adhered to.

While the first factor is an enabling provision, the second is a mandate.

The 2002 ruling by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India came on an Article 143 reference by the President of India in the context of the premature dissolution of the Gujarat Assembly on the advice of the Chief Minister, and delay in holding fresh elections.

The key aspect of the Supreme Court decision applicable to the present situation in Karnataka is that, under Article 324, which makes the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral roll and conduct of elections to the Assembly "the exclusive domain" of the Election Commission, “it is the duty of the…Commission to hold free and fair elections at the earliest…no efforts should be spared by the…Commission to hold timely elections…and it would be the duty and responsibility of all concerned to render all assistance, cooperation and aid to the…Commission for holding free and fair elections.”

“Free and fair election,” the Supreme Court held emphatically in its 2002 ruling, “is the sine qua non of democracy…The Election Commissioner is a high constitutional authority charged with the duty of ensuring free and fair elections and the purity of electoral process. To effectuate the constitutional objective and purpose it is to draw upon all incidental and ancillary powers. Six months’ period applicable to elections held on expiry of the prescribed term would be imperatively applicable to elections held after pre-mature dissolution. This of course would be subject to such rare exceptional cases occasioned on account of facts situation (like acts of God) which make holding of elections impossible. But [a] man made situation intended to defer [the] holding of elections should be sternly dealt with and should not normally be a ground for deferring elections beyond six months period, starting point of which would be the date of dissolution…Any man-made attempt to obstruct free and fair election is [the] antithesis to democratic norms and should be overcome by garnering resources from the intended sources and by holding the elections within the six months’ period.”

What this means in simple English is that Karnataka’s administration under President’s Rule has no choice but to gear up and deliver.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page