0

“One Nation, One Election”: A Game-Changer in the Indian Electoral System

Introduction: Scope and Definition of Simultaneous Elections

The idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) aims at restructuring and synchronizing the Indian election system. It is a system where the Lok Sabha and Vidhana Sabha (State Assemblies) elections are held simultaneously once in five years. In such a scenario, a voter would normally cast his/her vote for electing members of Lok Sabha and State Assembly on a single day and at the same time. But however, it does not necessitate the voting process to happen in a single day. It can be conducted in a phase-wise as per the existing practice provided voters in a particular constituency vote for both State Assembly and Lok Sabha the same day. The initiative will need a constitutional amendment, which will require ratification by 50% of the states.

This system however, excludes the elections of Panchayats, State municipalities and by-elections. The concept “Simultaneous Elections” ideally implies that elections to all the three tiers of constitutional institutions should take place on a single day. But, the third tier institutions which are primarily a State subject as per the Constitution are directed and controlled by the State Election Commissions.  These institutions are so significantly large in number that it becomes almost impossible to synchronize their election schedules with that of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections.

History of Simultaneous Election

The concept of simultaneous elections is, in fact, not new to the country. Post adoption of the Constitution, the elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously between 1951 till 1967 when the cycle of synchronized elections got disrupted. The first general elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held together in 1951-52.

This practice continued over three subsequent general elections held in the years- 1957, 1962 and 1967. However, due to the premature dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969, the cycle got disrupted for the first time. In 1970, Fourth Lok Sabha was itself dissolved prematurely and fresh elections held in 1971. The term of Fifth Lok Sabha was extended till 1977 under Article 352. As a result of all such premature dissolutions and extension, the cycle of simultaneous elections has been firmly disrupted. The table below presents the timelines of key milestones of various Lok Sabhas till date.

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory provisions

The aspects of constitution, dissolution and expiration of the legislatures (Lok Sabha / State Assemblies) are governed by constitutional and statutory provisions. Some of the relevant provisions for the instant matter are – 

  • Conduct of elections

Article 324 of the Constitution mandates the Election Commission of India (ECI) to supervise, direct and control elections to the offices of President, Vice President, both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha), State Legislative Assemblies and State Legislative Councils.

Further, 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution in 1992 provided for the creation of State Election Commissions (SECs) and are mandated to perform the above duties for constituting the third tier of Government in both rural and urban areas (Panchayati raj institutions, municipal bodies etc).

Besides this, the Parliament has enacted the Representation of People Act, 1950 & 1951 and the Rules framed there under, viz., Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to facilitate the conduct of elections by the ECI.

The Representation of People Act, 1951 provides the statutory basis for Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct elections in the country. Under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, ECI is empowered to notify elections to both Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies six months prior to the end of normal terms of these Houses. These provisions may be used to hold elections without extension of terms of some Assemblies.

  • Term of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies

Article 83 of the Constitution of India provides for the tenure of both Houses of the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha). Further, Article 83(2) provides for a term of five years for Lok Sabha, from the date of its first sitting unless dissolved earlier. It also states that the 5 years tenure period can be extended by a maximum of one year only in the case of an emergency. A similar provision also exists for State Legislative Assembly, under the Article 172 (1)) of the Constitution.

  • Pre-mature dissolution of Lok Sabha or State Assemblies

Article 85 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India provides the President with the power to dissolve Lok Sabha. Similar provision for dissolution of State Legislative Assemblies by the Governor of State is provided under Article 174 (2)(b). In the case of President’s Rule as provided under Article 356, the Legislative Assembly of the said State may be prematurely dissolved by the President.

It is important to note the judgement of S R Bommai v. Union of India in this context. The Court held that the power under Article 356 should be used very sparingly and only when President is fully satisfied that a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Otherwise, the frequent use of this power and its exercise are likely to disturb the Constitutional balance. Thereby, declared that the States have anindependent constitutional existence, and they have as important a role to play in the political, social, educational and cultural life of the people as the Union.

  • Collective Responsibility of Council of Ministers and No-confidence Motion

According to the Article 75(3) of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People. At the level of States too, Article 164(2) provides for a similar responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the State Legislative Assembly.

The Executive, therefore, derives its legitimacy from the Legislature and remains in power as long as it enjoys the confidence of the latter. A No-confidence Motion can be passed if either the Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly loses confidence in the Council of Ministers. It can fall any time with the passage of a No-confidence Motion in that House.

Pros and Cons of the Policy

The proponents of such a proposal argue that simultaneous polls will reduce expenses associated with holding elections. It is reported that the 2014 general elections cost the public exchequer an estimated ₹3,870 crore. It has also been pointed out that the Model Code of Conduct currently comes into effect twice in a five-year election cycle resulting in prolonged “governance downtime”.

However, opponents argue that this is likely to favour larger political parties with a national presence while disproportionately affecting smaller regional parties. A 2015 study by the independent think tank IDFC Institute revealed that between 1999 and 2014, there was a “77% chance that the winning political party or alliance will win both the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in that state when held simultaneously.” This figure drops to 61% if the elections are held even six months apart.

Recommendations of the High-level Panel on ‘One Nation, One Election

In September 2023, the Union Government set up a ‘High Level Committee on One Nation, One Election’ under the Chairmanship of former President of India, Ramnath Kovind. 

The High Level Committee has met on three occasions and sought the views of various national and State political parties on the subject of a common elections schedule. 

The panel unanimously recommended simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies as the first step followed by synchronised local body polls within 100 days, highlighting that such a mechanism will augment development and social cohesion and deepen the “foundations of the democratic rubric.”

  • Need for alleviating “huge burden” on stakeholders

Emphasizing the need to restore the cycle of simultaneous elections, the panel pointed out that conducting several elections every year casts a “huge burden” on stakeholders such as the government, businesses, workers, courts, political parties, candidates contesting elections, and the civil society at large. Accordingly, it said that the government must develop a “legally tenable mechanism” to ensure that elections to the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and local bodies can be held simultaneously by 2029. It also maintained that simultaneous polls do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens or the basic structure of the Constitution.

  • Two Step Process for Simultaneous Elections

The Committee has suggested a two-step process for making simultaneous polls a reality. First, it recommended holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. According to the report, no ratification by the states will be required for the constitutional amendment.

Second, it proposed synchronising the elections for municipalities and panchayats with the general (simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly) elections in a manner that ensures that the former is conducted within 100 days of the latter.

Thereafter, the President will have to issue a notification on the same date as the date of the first sitting of the Lok Sabha designating it as the “appointed date” for the synchronisation of elections. Once such a date is fixed, the terms of all State Assemblies constituted after it shall end with the expiry of the Lok Sabha’s term. This will result in most State governments being unable to complete their stipulated five-year term even if they enjoy a majority.

If the new government elected after the 2024 Lok Sabha polls accepts these recommendations and immediately initiates the process, the first simultaneous polls could be held as early as 2029. During this transition period, all States with elections due between June 2024 and May 2029 would see their terms expire alongside the 18th Lok Sabha. Consequently, some State Assemblies would have terms of less than five years as a one-time measure to facilitate this synchronization.

  • Single electorate roll

The committee also recommended that Article 325 be amended to enable the preparation of a single electoral roll and single Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) by the ECI, in consultation with the State Election Commissions (SECs). If this recommendation is accepted, the process of creating electoral rolls will be taken over by the ECI, and SECs will play a purely consultative role. These amendments will require ratification by not less than one-half of the states.

  • Ratification by States

Article 368 governs the process of amending the Constitution. While some provisions can be amended in the same way ordinary legislations are passed— through a simple majority of those present and voting in each House of the Parliament; others require a “special majority” i.e., not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House of the Parliament as well as by a majority of the total membership of each House.

  • Meeting logistical requirements

The committee has recommended that for meeting logistical requirements, the Election Commission of India will plan and estimate in advance, in consultation with the State Election Commissions, and take steps for the deployment of manpower, polling personnel, security forces, EVMs/VVPATs, etc., so that free and fair simultaneous elections are held in all the three tiers of the government.

Conclusion

The outcome of ‘One Nation, One Election has the potential to alter the fundamentals of democratic set-up and reset the federal structure, at this juncture, it is necessary to examine the legal issues arising out of it. The recommendations of the Committee will have to be evaluated as to its practicality and design a possible solution for simultaneous elections. Further, the safeguards will also be required to ensure the continuity of the cycle of simultaneous Elections. There is a need to reduce expenditures incurred on continuous elections and yet maintain the balance of federal polity and effective governance.

References

Government of India, NITI Aayog, Notes/Inputs provided by the NITI Aayog.

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/one-nation-one-election-kovind-panel-faq-9213797/

https://www.nextias.com/ca/editorial-analysis/24-01-2024/feasibility-of-one-nation-one-election

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/watch-one-nation-one-election-what-did-the-panel-recommend/article67953798.ece

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/2step-process-amendments-a-look-at-one-nation-one-election-panel-proposals-101710412844212.html

Article Written By – Keerthi K

0

Madras HC: PM Modi’s road show allowed, but with restrictions – Leaders’ connection with electorate should be unhindered.

Introduction

Significant attention and discussion have been generated in legal and political circles by the recent ruling in the matter of W.P.No.7377 of 2024, which involved J.Ramesh Kumar, the BJP District President, and the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. The argument centers on the vital question of authorising the Honorable Prime Minister of India to conduct a road show. The High Court handed down a historic ruling in this case on March 15, 2024, addressing security concerns, political leaders’ public engagement responsibilities, and the fundamental rights of assembly. Because it explores the difficult balance between protecting the democratic freedom of citizens to communicate with their elected representatives and guaranteeing the safety and security of prominent dignitaries like the prime minister, this decision is extremely significant. In addition to having an immediate effect on the parties concerned, the court’s decision establishes a precedent for matters involving political events, public gatherings, and the exercise of constitutional rights in democracies.

Background

J Ramesh Kumar, the Coimbatore BJP District President, filed a petition against the Coimbatore Commissioner of Police. The main focus of the case is the petitioner’s request for authorization to hold a road show on March 18, 2024, along Coimbatore’s Mettupalayam Road, a distance of 4 kilometers. The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India was scheduled to participate in this road show with the goal of promoting direct public contact and increasing public knowledge of the numerous welfare initiatives and programs launched by the Prime Minister’s office.

The petitioner sought adequate police protection for the event to ensure the safety and security of all participants, especially given the high-profile nature of the Prime Minister’s presence. However, the petition faced a setback when the Assistant Commissioner of R.S.Puram Range, Coimbatore, rejected the request through an order dated 14th March 2024. The rejection was based on concerns regarding the communal sensitivity of the proposed location for the road show, as well as the absence of prior permissions granted for similar events.

This rejection prompted J.Ramesh Kumar to challenge the decision through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ to quash the order and compel the authorities to grant permission for the road show.

Court Proceedings:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The BJP District President, J. Ramesh Kumar, made strong arguments in favor of his case before the High Court. He underlined how crucial the road show is to the Hon. Prime Minister of India’s ability to interact directly with the people and spread awareness of welfare policies and programs. In addition to highlighting the peaceful and educational nature of the planned event, the petitioner emphasised the importance of political leaders interacting with citizens.

Respondent’s Defense:

Conversely, the Assistant Commissioner of R.S. Puram Range and the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, defended their decision to deny permission for the road show. They raised issues about the location’s potential impact on communal sensitivities, the lack of previous approvals for events of a similar nature, and the general requirement to uphold law and order during public events featuring well-known individuals.

Judgement
Court’s Analysis of Arguments:

The High Court, under the stewardship of the Honorable Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, meticulously analyzed the arguments presented by the petitioner and the respondents. The court considered the petitioner’s assertion of the road show’s peaceful and informative nature, juxtaposed against the security apprehensions raised by the police authorities regarding communal sensitivities and law and order maintenance. The court weighed the petitioner’s right to conduct political activities and the Prime Minister’s prerogative to engage with the public against the legitimate security concerns raised by the police authorities. The court deliberated on the delicate balance between ensuring public safety and upholding democratic principles of free speech and assembly.

Key Considerations:

In reaching its decision, the court deliberated on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly the right to freedom of assembly and expression. The court also considered the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies to ensure public safety and security, especially during events involving high-profile dignitaries like the Prime Minister.

Decision and Directives:

Ultimately, the High Court rendered a pivotal judgment, allowing the writ petition filed by J. Ramesh Kumar and overturning the rejection order issued by the Assistant Commissioner. “The Road Show is going to take place after 5 PM in some arterial road and therefore, there is no occasion to disturb the students studying for the examination. This reason assigned in the rejection order is unsustainable,” the Court noted.The court granted permission for the road show to proceed, albeit with specific directives aimed at addressing security concerns and ensuring the orderly conduct of the event. The court’s decision underscored the importance of striking a balance between security imperatives and democratic principles in a pluralistic society.

Impact and Implications of the Judgment:

Upholding Democratic Rights:

The judgment in W.P.No.7377 of 2024 underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding democratic rights, particularly the freedom of assembly and expression. By allowing the road show to proceed, the court reaffirmed the importance of political engagement and public discourse in a democratic society.

Balancing Security Concerns:

The court’s decision striking a balance between security concerns and democratic freedoms sets a significant precedent. By imposing specific conditions to ensure the safety of all participants, the judgment demonstrates a nuanced approach to addressing security challenges without unduly infringing on constitutional rights.

Precedent for Future Cases:

The ruling in this case is poised to have far-reaching implications for future disputes involving public gatherings, political events, and security considerations. The judgment sets a precedent for courts to carefully weigh security concerns against the imperative of facilitating political activities and public engagement.

Strengthening Democratic Principles:

Overall, the judgment reinforces democratic principles by recognizing the importance of political participation and public engagement. By addressing security concerns through specific directives, the court’s decision exemplifies a commitment to upholding constitutional values while navigating complex issues at the intersection of security and democracy.

Conclusion

The judgment encapsulates a multifaceted legal saga revolving around the intersection of democratic rights, security imperatives, and political engagement. By addressing the nuanced balance between facilitating public discourse and ensuring public safety, the court’s decision sets a significant precedent for future cases grappling with similar complexities. The judgment underscores the paramount importance of upholding constitutional values, safeguarding democratic principles, and navigating the intricate dynamics between security concerns and individual liberties. Through its directives and considerations, the court’s ruling in this case resonates with broader themes of governance, legal interpretation, and the enduring quest to harmonize competing interests in a democratic society.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the judgment serves as a beacon of justice, guiding the way forward in upholding the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and fostering a vibrant democratic ethos. In essence, the case encapsulates the essence of legal deliberations at the confluence of security, democracy, and individual freedoms, leaving a lasting imprint on the legal discourse and the fabric of democratic governance in India.

References

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-pm-narendra-modi-road-show-permission-granted-coimbatore-252427

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court-jramesh-kumar-v-commissioner-of-police-permission-granted-for-narendra-modi-roadshow-bjp-coimbatore-police-order-unsustainable-1525802

https://mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1112246

 

 

 

 

 

0

MP High court emphasizes need for specific allegations in cases of dowry deaths to avoid roping in innocent relatives.

Case title: xxxxx v. State of MP and Anr.

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 18576 of 2022.

Decided on: 14.03.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice G.S. Ahluwalia

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case involves a complaint filed by the wife, respondent no. 2, against her husband, Mahendra Nagpur, and other family members. She alleged physical and mental harassment due to dowry demands. The complaint stated that she was mistreated by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and others for bringing insufficient dowry. The wife returned to her parental home and later lodged an FIR after efforts to reconcile failed. The court examined the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, leading to the quashing of prosecution against some family members due to lack of specific allegations against them.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Sections 294, 323, and 506/34 of the IPC were invoked in the FIR.

Section 498-A of the IPC, which deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or relatives, was also mentioned.

Dowry Prohibition Act:

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were cited in the FIR.

The Act prohibits the giving or taking of dowry and imposes penalties for demanding dowry.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

Belated FIR Lodging:

The appellants argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly and was time-barred.

They contended that the FIR was filed as a counterblast after an application for divorce was submitted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Abuse of Process of Law:

The appellants claimed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against them based on the FIR would be an abuse of the legal process.

They argued that the FIR should be quashed as it was not based on specific allegations and was lodged with extraneous considerations.

Lack of Specific Allegations:

It was contended that there were no specific allegations against some of the appellants, leading to the request for quashing their prosecution.

The appellants emphasized the need for specific allegations to proceed with the criminal proceedings.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondent no. 2, the wife, contended that she faced physical and mental harassment by her husband and other family members due to dowry demands. She alleged mistreatment, taunts, and demands for dowry, which led her to return to her parental home and eventually lodge an FIR.

The respondent argued that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands were genuine and warranted legal action.

It was contended that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to efforts to reconcile and not indicative of the allegations being false.

The respondent sought the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused based on the allegations of harassment and dowry demands.

Emphasis was placed on the need for justice and legal action against those responsible for the mistreatment.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

In the case under consideration, the court meticulously examined the intricate details surrounding the allegations of harassment and dowry demands brought forth by the respondent against the appellants. Despite the contention raised by the appellants regarding the belated lodging of the FIR and the perceived abuse of the legal process, the court underscored that the mere delay in filing the FIR subsequent to a divorce petition did not invalidate the seriousness of the allegations. The court’s analysis emphasized the pivotal importance of specific and substantiated allegations against the accused to warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings. Consequently, the court made a judicious decision to quash the prosecution of certain appellants where the allegations lacked the requisite specificity, thereby safeguarding innocent parties from unwarranted legal implications. This decision was rooted in the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures, ensuring that the pursuit of justice was guided by concrete evidence and procedural integrity. By upholding these principles, the court sought to strike a balance between addressing the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands while safeguarding the rights of all parties involved in the legal proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by– Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Legal transparency upheld: Supreme Court warns against misleading PILs and concealing facts

Case title: Smt. Hemika & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case no.: D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 15649/2022

Decided on: 20.02.2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhandari, Hon’ble Justice nn

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case involves petitioners who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2022 seeking to stop heavy blasting activities and machinery near residential areas. The petitioners were accused of concealing material facts, including ongoing civil litigation involving them and their relatives. The Court emphasized the importance of genuine public interest litigation and warned against frivolous petitions and false statements. The petitioners were found to have encroached on government land and raised constructions in a mining lease area. Due to the lack of truthful disclosure and concealment of relevant facts, the PIL was dismissed by the Court.

 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES:

Article 32 of the Constitution, which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Article 226 of the Constitution, which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts.

Precedents set by previous court cases such as “Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and “K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors.” which emphasize the importance of genuine public interest litigation and the consequences of concealing facts or filing frivolous petitions.

Environmental laws and regulations related to mining activities and pollution control, as mentioned in the case regarding the grant of mining leases and compliance with environmental clearances.

 

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The petitioners sought to remove the name of an illiterate petitioner (Petitioner No.5) from the PIL, claiming that he was unaware of the compromise in a previous suit involving villagers. The appellants argued that Respondent No.8 attempted to start mining in the disputed area, leading to opposition from villagers and damage to nearby buildings due to blasting activities. Allegations were made that FIRs were lodged against relatives of the petitioners, which the petitioners allegedly concealed in their filings. The appellants contended that mining activities had not commenced in the mining lease area, contrary to the claims made by the petitioners.

The appellants emphasized that mining leases were granted with Pollution Control Board approval and that halting mining activities resulted in revenue loss to the exchequer.

 

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents argued that the petitioners did not come forth with clean hands before the court and concealed material facts and misrepresented information in their PIL.

It was contended that the petitioners had encroached upon government land within the mining lease area and had constructed buildings, as reported by the Court Commissioner.

The respondents highlighted that the petitioners failed to disclose relevant facts, such as ongoing civil suits involving them and their relatives, and the lack of mining activities in the area for the past two years.

The respondents emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure in PIL cases and warned against misleading the court or suppressing material facts. It was asserted that the petitioners’ allegations of damage due to mining activities were inaccurate, as confirmed by the Court Commissioner’s report indicating the presence of fully grown trees and plants in the mining lease area.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The Court in the case underscored the fundamental principle that parties approaching the court must do so with clean hands, disclosing all material facts, and seeking appropriate relief without concealing or suppressing information. Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, the Court warned against abusing the legal process for personal gain, private motives, or oblique considerations. The Court highlighted the significance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being used judiciously to deliver social justice and not for mischief or vested interests, urging parties to act in the genuine interest of the public.

Furthermore, the Court referenced legal precedents that stressed the need for PIL to be approached with care and circumspection, ensuring that it serves its intended purpose effectively. In this case, the Court observed that the petitioners had failed to provide all relevant facts, including ongoing civil litigation involving them and the absence of mining activities in the area. Due to the lack of truthful disclosure and the concealment of material facts by the petitioners, the Court dismissed the PIL and imposed exemplary costs as a deterrent against filing frivolous petitions with oblique motives.

 

The judgment served as a reminder of the principles of transparency, honesty, and genuine public interest that should underpin PIL cases. By dismissing the petition and imposing costs, the Court aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal system, deter unscrupulous litigants from misusing the legal process, and ensure that PIL fulfils its intended purpose of promoting public interest and social justice. The ruling sought to maintain the credibility of the judiciary and uphold the standards of ethical conduct in legal proceedings.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement.

 

0

The Supreme Court upholds 50% marks criteria in interview set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the promotion as District Judges

Case title – Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors

Case no. – Civil Appeal Nos. 2179-2180 of 2024

Decision on – February 13, 2024

Quoram – Chief Justice of India Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the case

The High Court in the year 2013 stipulated that that an aggregate of 50% marks in the written test and viva voce combined is required to render a candidate eligible for promotion. Whereas, in 2021 a meeting of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee overseeing the Superior Judicial Service acting through the States of Haryana and Punjab resolved that a candidate must secure 50% marks in the written test and 50% marks in the viva voce to be eligible for promotion. This resolution was also approved by a full court.

On 24 August 2022, the process of filling up vacancies for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judges from among the in-service officers was initiated The High Court conducted a written test which was followed by a viva voce. Based in this test, the Registrar (Judicial), on 23 February 2023, addressed a communication to the State Government recommending the names of thirteen judicial officers.

The High Court’s directive faced opposition primarily due to the absence of minimum cut-off criteria for viva voce as prescribed by the Rules. Moreover, the State of Haryana objected to the direction, citing the lack of consultation with the State Government as mandated under Article 233 of the Constitution.

The candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court to restrain the State from accepting the recommendations made by the High Court and for quashing the Resolution of 30 November 2021. The High Court by its impugned order directed the State of Haryana to take positive action in concurrence with the recommendations of February 2023.

Submission of the Parties

The Petitioners submitted that there was no rational justification for prescribing of the minimum cut-off criteria in both the suitability test and in the viva voce when appointments are made for in-service candidates

They contended that the candidates drawn for promotion in the 65% promotion quota and 10% from the in-service are from the same pool. Consequently, a minimum cut-off cannot be logically justified for the 65% promotion quota when there is no such norm for the 10%, which is filled up on the basis of the limited competitive examination.

The Counsel submitted that the absence of notice to candidates about the alteration in the criteria of eligibility and introduction of minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce has resulted in substantial injustice.

The Counsel on behalf of the State submitted that as per Article 233 the High Court ought to have consulted the State while making a modification to its own Resolution for the selection of District Judges. Thus, contended that the directives of High Court suffered from implicit subjectivity and arbitrariness.

Issue – Whether the 65% quota for selection through merit-cum-seniority under the promotion procedure is outlined by Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that since the Rules are silent on the aspect of a minimum cut-off for viva voce, the High Court was justified in prescribing such a condition through a Full Court resolution.

It also distinguished its judgment in Sivanandan CT and others v. High Court of Kerala and others on the ground that in that case, there was already a clear prescription of the rules regarding cut-off criteria. But, in the present case, the Rules were entirely silent regarding prescribing minimum eligibility to clear the test and viva which gave enough space for the High Court on the administrative side to provide the modalities of marking marks.

The petitioners had also questioned the need for an interview, pointing out that the candidates are in-service judicial officers aspiring for promotion as opposed to fresh candidates.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court noted that a candidate should not just show knowledge in the suitability test but must also demonstrate the same in the course of the interview held for the promotion. The Apex Court, thus, stated that the High Court is at liberty to decide the personality and interview requisites of the in-service officers.

The Court also rejected the argument raised by the State Government relying on Article 233 and stated that the State erred in finding fault with the directives of High Court. The Court opined that since the Rules were silent, any issue between the State and the High Court should have been ironed out through a consultative process.

The Court ruled that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal or other infirmity. Thereby, the Court dismissed a batch of special leave petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates and the State of Haryana and upheld a criteria set by the High Court which stipulated that judicial officers with minimum of 50% marks in the interviews to be eligible for promotion to the post of District Judges.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

1 2 3 1,778