Delhi High Court Refuses To Permit Arrested Politicians To Campaign Through VC For Lok Sabha Polls 2024
Case title: Amarjeet Gupta vs Election Commission of India & ORS
Case no.: WP NO. (C) 6076 OF 2024
Dated on: 01ST May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet
Pritam Singh Arora and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petition was filed by Amarjeet Gupta, a law student, who expressed concern over the timing of the arrest of politicians, particularly Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, following the announcement of the model code of conduct by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The bench stressed the importance of the separation of powers and urged the petitioner’s lawyer to educate him on this principle.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the petition goes against the fundamental principles of law and that the court cannot act contrary to the law. Justice Manmohan emphasized that the judiciary aims to stay away from politics, but increasingly, people are involving them in political matters.
The present case Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been flied seeking a direction to the union of India to provide information about the arrest of political party leader or candidate immediately to the Election commission of India (ECI). When the Model of conduct (MCC)is in force. The petitioner also seek a direction to ECI to develop a mechanism to ensure that the arrested under- trial political party leader and /or candidates are allowed to campaign through Virtual Conference (VC) mode with reasonable restriction as may be decided by a competent court and or the ECI.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The petitioner’s counsel argued that no one can be arrested while the model code of conduct is in force. However, the court countered this argument by questioning whether a candidate who commits murder during the election period should be exempt from arrest due to the model code of conduct. The bench reiterated that it is not within their domain to interfere in such matters or make laws. The petition claimed that the arrest of political leaders deprives electors of their fundamental right to receive information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution through election campaigning. It also argued that the leaders of political parties are deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental and legal right to campaign during the election. He states that the petitioner is of the opinion that to ensure free and fair elections and level playing field to all political parties.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondent’s counsel submitted that the directions sought by the petitioner are beyond the jurisdiction of Election Commission of India (ECI). He stated that ECI cannot interfere in judicial process, where a person is arrested in accordance with law.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 19(1) (a) of Indian Constitution: All the citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Article 226 of Indian Constitution: Clearly states that every high court have the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction to issue writ or any order to any person or authority.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
This court is of the view that the present writ petition which effectively challenges the arrest of the National convenor of APP on 16th march, 2024 is not maintainable as the said person is in judicial custody in pursuance to the judicial orders, which are not a subject matter of the present petition. The direction sought in the present petition to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide information of the arrest of a political party leader or a candidate to ECI when MCC is in force belies the Petitioner’s legal understanding with respect to the Rule of law.
As for a policy that would allow undertrials to campaign from prison, the court said that the petition was ignorant of the existing rules in the jail manuals of states, which govern the rights of undertrial prisoners. “Even otherwise, the ECI [Election Commission of India] does not have any jurisdiction with respect to the rights of undertrials, who are in judicial custody,” the court said. “The petition has been filed in ignorance of the doctrine of separation of powers and seeks directions which are legislative in nature and therefore, outside of power of judicial review,” said the bench. The court labelled the petition as “frivolous” and said that it was inclined to impose a fine on the plaintiff. “However, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that since the Petitioner is a student the costs be exempted,” this petition is, therefore, without any merit is dismissed.
“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 – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
