Madras High Court Declines Interim Relief in Election Commission De-recognition Case
The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling on Wednesday, refused to issue an interim order against the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to de-recognize several political parties. Among the affected parties are the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), and Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi.
Grounds for De-recognition and Court's Stance
The ECI had taken action against these parties on the basis that they had not contested any elections over the past six years. When the MMK approached the court seeking relief, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan and Justice G Arul Murugan made a critical observation. The bench noted that granting any interim relief at this stage would effectively amount to allowing the petitions themselves, thereby refusing to intervene.
Petitioners' Arguments Against ECI's Authority
According to the petitioners, the Election Commission's order targeted a total of 476 parties, and they contended that this action was without jurisdiction. They argued that the ECI lacks the power to de-recognize a party once it has been registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA).
Senior advocate P Wilson, representing the MMK, presented a detailed legal argument. He submitted that the ECI has no authority to review the registration of a party granted under Section 29A, except in specific circumstances. These exceptions include cases where registration was obtained through fraud or when a party is declared unlawful under laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. This position was reinforced by a Supreme Court decision in the Indian National Congress case from 2002.
Specific Claims by MMK and Procedural Concerns
Wilson further argued that the MMK, which was registered in 2009, should not be subject to the 2014 guidelines relied upon by the ECI. He emphasized that the party is not required to contest elections continuously for six years, challenging the applicability of these guidelines.
Additionally, the petitioners raised procedural concerns, stating that the order was passed by the secretary of the ECI, who does not constitute the Election Commission as defined under the RPA. They argued that the secretary cannot assume the powers of the commission, and such orders, which deprive parties of benefits under Sections 29B and 29C of the RPA, should not be passed mechanically due to their significant civil consequences.
The court's refusal to grant interim relief marks a pivotal moment in this legal battle, highlighting the ongoing debate over the Election Commission's authority and the procedural safeguards for political parties in India.
