When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Plea for Free Transport and More Polling Booths on Election Day

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Sayed Khalil Ulla Hussaini seeking the implementation of free bus services for voters on polling day and an increase in the number of polling booths for the upcoming Member of Legislative Council election in the North East Graduate Constituency. The case was heard by Justices R. Devdas and J.M. Khazi under Writ Petition No. 12711 of 2024 (GM-RES).

Mr. Hussaini filed the petition as a public interest litigation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Chief Electoral Officer and the Regional Commissioner to consider his representations for providing free transportation to voters and increasing polling booths from 160 to a higher number for the election scheduled in 2024. His contention was that such measures would enhance voter participation and uphold democratic principles.

 

The petition was grounded in:

 

- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which empower High Courts to issue certain writs.

 

- Section 123(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which pertains to corrupt practices in elections.

 

- Rule 14(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2018, which governs the filing of PILs.

 

The court addressed the petitioner's plea for free bus services on polling day, stating that such a provision by the State or Public Transport Corporations would contravene Section 123(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. This section explicitly states that providing free transport to voters can be considered a corrupt practice. The court underscored that neither the Election Commission nor any state authority has the power to issue such directives, as it could be misinterpreted as misuse of authority and a breach of the Model Code of Conduct.

Regarding the request to increase the number of polling booths, the court found that the respondents had already addressed this concern. The number of polling booths had been increased from 160 to 195 based on the number of voters and input from the Deputy Commissioner. The court concluded that this enhancement was sufficient and aligned with legal requirements.

The court meticulously analyzed the statutory provisions and the objections raised by the respondents. It observed that the petitioner's request for free bus services was untenable under the existing legal framework. Moreover, the respondents had adequately addressed the issue of polling booth numbers, demonstrating a proactive approach to ensuring voter accessibility.

The use of any public transport vehicle by an elector at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station shall not be deemed a corrupt practice under this clause."

This reinforced the principle that while voters can use public transport at their own expense, the provision of free transport by the state or other entities would be unlawful.

The High Court of Karnataka's decision to dismiss the writ petition emphasizes adherence to legal provisions concerning election conduct. The judgment ensures that election practices remain free from influences that could be construed as corrupt practices. The court's ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.

The petitioner, Mr. Hussaini, may consider appealing the decision if further action is deemed necessary. However, the court's comprehensive analysis and reliance on statutory provisions make an appeal challenging.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2024

Mr. Sayed Khalil Ulla Hussaini vs. The Chief Election Commission of India & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News