Case title: Dr. Chadalavada Aravinda Babu and Ors. VS. The Election Commission of India, and Ors.
Case no: WRIT PETITION No. 26889 of 2023 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION Nos. 25343, 28058 of 2023
Order on: 20 May , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Fact of the case:
In this case, Three writ petitions were filed regarding the relocation of polling stations by the Election Commission of India. The petitioners alleged that the shifting was done without proper consultation and with political motives. First petition was W.P.No.26889 of 2023 where the petitioners claimed that polling stations in Rompicherla Village were shifted without following guidelines from the Election Commission. They argued that the relocation aimed to prevent certain voters from casting their votes. Second petition was W.P.No.25343 of 2023 where the petitioner objected to the shifting of a polling station from Zilla Parishad High School to Mandal Parishad Primary School based on a request from the local MLA. They argued that the move was politically motivated. And the third petition was W.P.No.28058 of 2023 where the petitioner sought the establishment of new polling stations in three villages, claiming that villagers had to travel more than two kilometers to cast their votes. The respondents, including the Election Commission of India, defended the actions, stating they were in accordance with guidelines and aimed at improving accessibility and security.
Issues framed by court:
Whether the Election Commission violated its own guidelines by relocating polling stations without consulting political parties and affected residents.
Whether the shifting of polling stations was politically motivated.
Whether the establishment of new polling stations is necessary in villages where voters have to travel long distances to cast their votes.
Legal provisions:
Sections 62 and 25 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.: Deals with Right to Vote and the Provision of polling stations.
Contentions of Appellant:
The petitioners argued that the Election Commission of India violated its own guidelines by relocating the polling stations without consulting political parties and the affected residents. They contended that this relocation was done without proper consultation, as required by the guidelines. The petitioners alleged that the shifting of polling stations was politically motivated. They claimed that the relocations were aimed at preventing certain voters, particularly from the BC, SC, and ST communities, from casting their votes. The petitioners asserted that they were not given an opportunity to present their objections or concerns regarding the relocation of polling stations. They argued that they should have been consulted before such a decision was made.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondents argued that the relocation of polling stations was done in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India. They contended that the decision was justified based on the circumstances and requirements of the constituencies. The respondents provided justifications for the relocation of polling stations, citing reasons such as the lack of facilities, security concerns, and the need to ensure accessibility for all voters, especially those from marginalized communities. The respondents stated that the proposals for the relocation of polling stations were placed before political parties for consultation, and they were approved. They claimed that no objections were raised during the approval process, indicating that the decision was acceptable.
Court analysis& Judgement:
In this case, the court found that the petitioners in these writ petitions 26889 and 25343 of 2023 did not succeed solely on the ground that the Electoral Registration Officer had not provided the requisite report in the prescribed format. The court did not find merit in these writ petitions and accordingly dismissed them. Regarding Writ Petition 28058 of 2023, the court acknowledged the grievance of the petitioner regarding the need to establish polling stations in three villages where voters had to travel a distance of more than two kilometers to cast their votes. The court noted that in one village, L.Kottala, voters would have to travel a distance of 9.8 kilometers. While the respondents had cited villagers’ concerns about potential interference from political leaders as a reason for not establishing polling stations in these villages, the court emphasized the importance of preventing hardship for voters, especially those who are elderly, pregnant women, or physically challenged. The court directed the official respondents to seriously consider the petitioner’s request for establishing polling stations in these villages to prevent voters from having to travel more than two kilometers. The court instructed the official respondents to consider the representation dated 10.10.2023, of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders accordingly, in accordance with the law.
“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- Antara Ghosh
