Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High 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