New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay at this stage the local body elections in Tamil Nadu scheduled to be held on October 17 and 19.
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, however, agreed to hear on October 6 appeals filed by the DMK challenging the elections on the basis of 2006 census as well as the State Election Commission’s decision not to use electronic voting machines for the polls.
Senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for DMK, through its organising secretary, R.S. Bharathi told the bench that since elections have to be held only on the basis of delimitation of wards as per the 2011 census, it could be postponed for three or four weeks. He also wanted a direction that Central government employees should be posted as poll officials. Senior counsel V. Giri said EVMs should be used for the polls.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi for the State and Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar for State Election Commission opposed any stay and said the legal issues can be examined after the holding of elections. The Bench, however, said it will examine all the issues and issued notice to the authorities for their response on October 6 when the matter will be heard finally.
The SLP sought a direction to declare the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (2nd Amendment) Act, 2016 and Tamil Nadu (2nd Amendment) Act, 2016 as ultra vires the Constitution so as to enable the delimitation of wards, and reservation of seats in Urban and Rural Local Bodies election in 2016, to be according to 2011 census. It also sought a direction to the State EC to take steps for compulsory usage of EVMs and appoint observers and poll officers from Central government Departments in furtherance of constitutional mandate of Free and Fair elections.
The DMK said the HC, while dismissing the plea, said not carrying out the delimitation of wards based on the census of 2011 is not proper and the same is contrary to the constitutional guarantee as provided to the citizens.
However, the court did not feel fit to interfere in the elections on the ground that the process of delimitation would not render the process ultra vires. The court held that it is merely a procedural irregularity and does not go into the root of election.
Similarly, though the High court accepted the contention of the petitioner that EVMs are more effective method of representing people’s actual mandate coupled with other benefits such as financial and environmental but refused to direct the EC for mandatory usage of EVMs.
The DMK said that the State Government was in possession of the entire data related to the Census of 2011 as early as in 2013 and there was no justifiable reason for the State Government to follow the 2001 census, for the elections in local bodies to be held in 2016.
On EVMs, it said that Section 61-A of the Representation of the People Act mandates the usage of EVMs and in 2011 the State Commission had already conducted elections to all urban local bodies using the EVMs.
Hence it prayed for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification issued by the Election Commission and to hold the polls only on the basis of 2011 census and to use EVMs.
