The Hindu : Front Page : Constitutional obligation to hold Karnataka polls by May-end: experts

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Mar 17, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Constitutional obligation to hold Karnataka polls by May-end: experts

J. Venkatesan

They can’t be postponed on grounds of possible defects in electoral rolls to be published

Hurried revision may produce a defective roll
Revision of rolls is an ongoing exercise

New Delhi: Legal experts are unanimous that the Election Commission has a constitutional obligation to conduct the elections to the Karnataka Assembly before the expiry of President’s rule on May 28 and that the polls cannot be postponed merely on grounds of possible defects in electoral rolls to be published.

The Commission has already geared the poll machinery in Karnataka, and delimitation of Assembly constituencies in all the districts is expected to be completed around March 20. Revised electoral rolls are expected to be published thereafter.

The immediate concern of the Commission seems to be the apprehension of Congress and certain other political parties that if the process of revision of electoral rolls was hurried through — invoking Rule 24 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (special provision for preparation of rolls on re-delimitation of constituencies) — there was the possibility of bringing out a defective roll which will not be conducive to holding elections.

Legal experts feel that there is no basis for this apprehension as revision of rolls is an ongoing exercise. By interpolation of the existing rolls (before the delimitation exercise), the revised rolls can be published in the redrawn Assembly constituencies.

They recalled an instance in 1983 when elections were held in Assam as per the 1979 electoral rolls before the expiry of President’s rule. Revision of rolls could not be done as a number of applications relating to objections of citizenship could not be disposed of by the government.

At that time, the choice before the Commission was of holding the elections before the target date of March 19, 1983 or undertaking the revision of electoral rolls as per the procedure contemplated under the Representation of the People Act and ignoring the “foreign nationals” issue. It was felt that holding the election before the target date was a paramount constitutional obligation and that the polls could be held as per the rolls in force.

Further, according to these experts, it was felt at that time that if the Election Commission was to arrogate to itself the power to defer an election because of alleged perverted and defective electoral rolls, in future no election would be safe as the Commission might use these powers in derogation of constitutional mandate and compulsions in lesser crisis and lesser serious circumstances in other States as compared to Assam.

Higher priority

At that time the Commission itself was of the view that holding of an election should be given higher priority than the revision of electoral rolls if such revision would result in a constitutional deadlock.

Legal experts also referred to another 1985 Supreme Court judgment relating to a West Bengal case in which the court said “holding of elections to legislatures and holding them according to law are both matters of paramount importance. On the one hand is the individual’s statutory right of franchise, on the other is the constitutional obligation imposed by Article 168 that for every State there shall be a legislature.”

The apex court had said “a perfect electoral roll is not possible. The fact that the revision of electoral rolls, either intensive or summary, is undertaken by the Commission does not have the effect of putting the electoral roll last published in cold storage. The election has to be held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last date for making nominations.”

There are overwhelming decisions in favour of holding Assembly elections in Karnataka before the expiry of President rule notwithstanding reservations expressed by certain political parties, say legal experts.

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

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section