In a stunning blow to the democratic process, the notification to local body elections slated to be held on October 17 and 19, has been cancelled by the Madras high court on the grounds that the issue of 'reservation' was not satisfactorily addressed and that the amendments introduced tilted the level playing field in favour of the ruling dispensation.
The judge also adverted to criminality tainting the political field and the need for all parties to make a fresh start. This was done despite the fact the nominations have closed and the withdrawal date has passed too.
It is déja vu time in Tamil Nadu as one is reminded of the famous split verdict of January 12, 2007 in AIADMK vs SEC. That decision came about after the conduct of elections to 155 wards and the judge, in dissent, directed repoll in 99 wards by recording that extraordinary situations cried for extraordinary remedies and the normal legal route was not the answer. That decision came after the poll and the results and did not stall the elections or run it aground before takeoff.
It is no surprise that the TN SEC, as a constitutional body, has promised to challenge the cancellation. More so, when just the other day a division bench of the Madurai Bench declined to interfere on the grounds that electoral processes cannot be stifled.
The current decision is no ordinary one. It is constitutional upheaval at one level as interdicting an electoral process set in motion is unheard of. Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures - read local bodies too - have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of prime importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to a time schedule. And all controversial matters and disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.
In conformity with this principle, the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election." And if any irregularities are committed while the election is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law governing elections, would have the effect of vitiating the' 'election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition. No issue can be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress - this is quoted from N.P.Ponnuswami v Returning Officer - AIR 1952 Mad 64., the high priest of law in this jurisprudence.
A student of constitutional law would surely wonder whether the Madras High had sound evidentiary / legal support for its epochal decision. Politics apart, it is quite understandable that TN SEC owes it to its very existence to file an appeal. Matters may not rest there and they may go all the way to the Supreme Court too. Time alone will tell whether the announced schedule of local body elections would hold. Political wrangles make for fascinating constitutional tangles. The present order is, however, too mind numbing to digest. A mouth watering tussle is in the offing, but at what cost to democracy.
(The writer is a practicing advocate at Madras high court)
