Bombay High Court Halts Ponda Bypoll in Unprecedented Legal Move
In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court intervened to stop the Election Commission from proceeding with the Ponda bypoll scheduled for Thursday. This marks the first instance in Goan political history where an assembly election has been canceled by court order, setting a significant legal precedent.
Court Rejects EC's Plea for Stay on Order
After delivering the judgment, a division bench comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar firmly rejected the Election Commission's request to stay the order for two weeks. The EC argued that the election process had already commenced, with 171 voters casting postal ballots and the entire electoral machinery deployed at the site. However, the bench clarified that it had declared the EC's notification contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, deeming it untenable to grant a stay.
Legal Grounds for Cancellation
The high court held that the EC's March 16 notification for the Ponda bypoll was "arbitrary" as it contravened proviso 151A(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This provision exempts the EC from holding elections if the remainder of the term of a legislator, in relation to the vacancy, is less than one year. The court emphasized that this legal bar was clearly violated in this case.
Petitioners' Challenge and Court Proceedings
Two voters from the Ponda constituency—social worker Pritam Harmalkar, aged 49, and advocate Ankita Kamat, aged 32—approached the high court to challenge the election. They argued that a newly-elected MLA would not be able to complete the mandatory minimum tenure of one year as required by the RPA. The petitions were filed on March 18 and 23, with hearings commencing on March 30 and concluding on April 2, after which the court reserved its order.
The petitioners pointed out that the incoming member would only get a term of approximately 10 months, as the assembly's term expires on March 14, 2027. This, they contended, made the election contrary to the RPA provisions, a stance the court ultimately upheld.
EC's Defense and Court's Rebuttal
Represented by senior advocate S R Rivankar, the Election Commission argued that the phrase "remainder of the term" in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151A refers to an outgoing member, not an incoming one. The EC further submitted that a Nagpur bench of the same high court had misinterpreted a Supreme Court view, which it considered a binding precedent, regarding the calculation of the one-year period from the date of vacancy.
However, the court relied on the judgment in Sandeep Yashwantrao Sarode, stating it was a "binding precedent and therefore binding on this bench." It noted that the election result announcement date of May 4, 2026, would leave only about nine months until the assembly term ends on March 14, 2027, thus contravening the act.
Court Dismisses EC's Call for Larger Bench
The high court also rejected the EC's argument that conflicting views on the issue necessitated referral to a larger bench. It stated, "...We must observe that this is not a case where there are two conflicting decisions of coordinate benches of the Bombay high court. All decisions of the Bombay high court on the interpretation of clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151A are consistent." This reinforced the uniformity of legal interpretation in such matters.
Legal Representation and Broader Implications
Pritam Harmalkar was represented by senior advocate Akshay Naik with advocate Chaitanya Padgaonkar, while Ankita Kamat was represented by senior advocate Nitin Sardessai with advocate Terence Sequeira. This case highlights the critical role of judicial oversight in electoral processes and underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines to ensure fair and lawful governance.
