Recently, The Supreme Court Agreed with the Election Commission‘s view that Article 329(b) restricts judicial interference.

• Therefore, adjourned ADR’s request for the Election Commission to release voter turnout data.

Article 329(b) invoked by EC in SC that restricts judicial intervention in poll process

• Earlier, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO, sought directions to the Election Commission (EC)cto publish booth-wise voter turnout figures and to make the Form 17C vote tally records available online within 48 hours of polling for each phase of the ongoing Lok Sabha polls.

About Article 329

• Enshrined in Part XV of the Constitution (Articles 324-329 specifically discuss elections). 
• Article 329, which has two clauses, concerns itself with the role of the judiciary in electoral matters.
  • Article 329 (a) says the “Judiciary is not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of laws relating to the boundaries of electoral districts or the allocation of seats”.
  • Article 329 (b) says that “Any challenges to the conduct or results of elections to the Houses of Parliament or state legislatures must be made through a designated legal process that is referred to as an “election petition”. 
    • The 19th Amendment Act of 1966 refined clause (b) of Article 329, stipulating that election-related inquiries are exclusively addressed through election petitions presented to the authority designated by that law. 
    • The Representation of the People Act, 1951, furthers this clause as it empowers the high courts to hear and decide election petitions. 
    • A decision in such petitions can be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Several Judicial Pronouncements Outlined the Contours of Article 329(b) 

• Ponnuswamy (AIR 1952 SC 64) : In a Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, SC has emphasized what is implicit in Art. 329 (b) that once the process of election has started, it should not be interrupted since the tempo may slow down and the early constitution of an elected parliament may be halted. 
  • Therefore, think twice before obligating a hearing at a critical stage when a quick repoll is the call.
• K. Venkatachalam vs A.Swamickan Case ( 1999) :  The Supreme Court in that case determined that Article 329(b) is inapplicable if the matter pertains to Articles 191 and 193, which deal with disqualifications and penalties related to parliamentary and legislative assembly membership, respectively. 
  • The judgment further held that the word “election” would include every process of proceedings after the issuance of election notification.
• Inderjit Barua vs Election Commission of India (1985) : In that case, the Supreme Court excluded electoral roll preparation from the definition of “election.”
  • It further said that no election could be challenged on the grounds of defects in electoral rolls. 
• Gujarat High Court judgment in N.C. Patel vs State of Gujarat(2007) : The HC affirmed that election petitions can only be filed under the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and not by way of a writ petition. 
• Allahabad High Court  in Hari Krishna Lal vs Atal Bihari Bajpai(n 2002) : clarified that only candidates officially recognised by the Election Commission are eligible to file election petitions. 
  • By merely filing a nomination paper, a person does not become a duly nominated candidate. 
  • A candidate becomes a nominated candidate when the EC recognises him to be a valid candidate fulfilling all the statutory obligations.

DOWNLOAD PDF