Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Petition in Challenge of Polling Booth Locations. Reiterates Political Interference Concerns in Remote Locations
Case Name: Dr. Chadalavada Aravinda Babu v. The Election Commission of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15345/2023
Dated: May 22, 2024
Quorum: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Raghunandan Rao
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioners in this writ petition contend that the relocation of polling stations Nos. 36 and 37 in Rompicherla Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, to a new site was done in flagrant disregard for the guidelines provided in the Election Commission of India’s Manual on Polling Stations, also known as “the manual.”
The petitioners take issue with the fact that these polling places were moved from their current location without consulting the political parties or giving the petitioners a chance to be heard. There have been allegations of malfeasance over the moving of these voting places, with the main goal allegedly being to thwart the right of the majority of voters in the current sites to vote, as protected by Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act.
ISSUES:
The primary concern in this case is that the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) did not specifically deny the petitioner’s request for leave, which led her to believe it was approved and ultimately became a source of disagreement.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 50 of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- The extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest is one factor that a regional transport authority must consider when evaluating an application for a contract carriage permit. Additionally, the authority must take into account any representations that may then be made, or may have previously been made, by individuals who already hold contract carriage permits in the region, by any local authority or police authority in the region, regarding the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted being sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to Petitioner No. 1, he is the leader of the TDP political party in the Narasaraopet Assembly Constituency. According to the petition, Petitioner No. 2 is a resident of Rompicherla Village and has been voting from Booth No. 36 in that community.
According to the petition, Petitioner No. 3 is likewise a resident of Rompicherla Village and has been voting at the village’s polling place, No. 37. According to Petition No. 4, the voter was a resident of Petlurivaripalem Village and had been using Polling Booth No. 223 in the village. Petitioner No. 5 on the other hand claims to be a resident of Petlurivaripalem Village and has been using Petlurivaripalem Village’s voting booth No. 224 to cast his ballot.
In order to construct new voting places in three villages—Kosannapalle, Lalmanpalli, and L. Kottala Villages of Veldurthy Mandal in the Pattikonda Assembly Constituency—the petitioner requests a mandamus from the respondents. The primary argument made is that the voters in these areas must travel more than two kilometres to cast their ballots, and the Election Commission should have taken action to establish polling places within that two-kilometer radius.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel of the respondents argued that the submissions made by the petitioners stating that On behalf of the respondents, the Additional Chief Electoral Officer refutes any infringement of the guidelines found in the above-mentioned handbook.
It is claimed that the polling station relocation was mandated in accordance with the case’s facts and circumstances and was warranted. It is mentioned that the District Election Officer has the authority to set up a polling place in each constituency in accordance with Section 25 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and that the Election Commission of India must approve any arrangements the District Election Officer makes for polling places.
The official response stated that the political parties were consulted regarding the recommendations regarding polling stations Nos. 36 and 37 in Rompicherla Village and Nos. 223 and 224 in Petlurivaripalem Village. It is said that every other political party, with the exception of the TDP, was present and that they approved of the idea.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court determined that the primary focus of the petitioners’ learned counsel’s argument in writ petition Nos. 26889, 25343 of 2023 is that the official respondents disregarded the guidelines outlined in the Election Commission of India’s manual, thereby failing to adhere strictly to the prescribed procedure.
While the petitioners claim that the political parties were not consulted as per instruction 4.3.3 of the manual for rationalising the polling stations, the respondents maintain that all political parties were consulted with the exception of the TDP, which declined to participate in the consultation process.
The court also determined that the petitioner’s complaint is that the voting places should have been located in the three villages where voters were required to travel more than two km. In actuality, the petitioner had pointed out that voters would need to travel 9.8 km to vote in one L. Kottala Village.
Despite the official respondents’ position in the response that meetings and consultations were held in the affected villages, where the villagers of the three villages expressed displeasure with the establishment of polling booths due to their fear that political bosses would interfere with their right to vote, forcing the voters to travel roughly nine kilometres to cast their ballots in particular.
“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 Riddhi S Bhora
