The Hindu : Poll panel asks SC not to fix any time limit

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 02, 2002

National

National

Poll panel asks SC not to fix any time limit

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI Oct. 1. Even as the Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on the three-point Presidential reference relating to the holding of elections in Gujarat, the Election Commission urged the court not to fix any time limit for holding elections.

A five-Judge Constitution Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, B.N. Kirpal, Justice V.N. Khare, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Arijit Pasayat, reserved the judgment at the conclusion of marathon arguments for seven days, spread over two weeks, by various counsel.

The Bench, however, said it was not granting any interim relief in the writ petition (which would be taken up separately) challenging the continuance of Narendra Modi as caretaker Chief Minister of Gujarat.

As a result, Mr. Modi could continue as Chief Minister beyond October 3, when the six-month deadline (from the last session of the Assembly held on April 3) expires.

During the course of hearing, the Bench observed: "We understand the difficulty in holding immediate elections in Gujarat. But no one can argue that for months together the Commission would sit tight and say that it cannot hold elections within the stipulated time."

Replying to the arguments of the Solicitor-General, Harish Salve, senior counsel for the Commission, K.K. Venugopal, said that just as the apex court, the Commission was a constitutional authority which was performing its democratic function of holding free and fair elections.

He said the court, while answering the reference, should not curtail the powers of the Commission or formulate rigid conditions for holding elections. Though it had always been the endeavour of the Commission to hold elections as early as possible after dissolution of the Assembly, the actual period when to hold the polls should be left to the wisdom of the Commission depending on the "ground realities", counsel said.

Mr. Venugopal pointed out that many situations, either man-made or natural, might arise in future, which would require the postponement of the polls.

In the case of Gujarat, counsel clarified that the Commission had not given any undertaking that the elections would be held during November/December.

No undertaking could be given regarding the functions of a constitutional authority. However, every effort would be made to hold the polls in November/December after the finalisation of electoral rolls, which are expected to be ready by October 15. Mr. Venugopal said that Article 174 should yield to the decision of the Commission under Article 324.

Regarding the second point in the reference, Mr. Venugopal was of the view that if for some reasons, Article 174 (1) could not be complied with, the Constitution had provided a "safety valve" or "escape clause" in the form of Article 356 and President's rule could be an option.

He said that the Commission, in its order, did not come to the conclusion that President's rule should be imposed in Gujarat; it had only explained that the situation was not conducive for holding free and fair elections and if for this reason, Article 174 (1) could not be complied with, then Article 356 was an answer.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National