Disputed Question Of Fact Cannot Be Adjudicated On In A Writ Petition: Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Election Of MPs/MLAs

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the election of some MPs and MLAs noting that the issue involved disputed questions of fact which could not be looked into in a writ petition. Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a plea by ML Ravi to declare the election of some MPs and MLAs as null and void and declare the acceptance of their forms as illegal. “In the present case, the disputed questions of fact exist as to whether these persons are members of two political parties or one and at the same time, whether they were the members of the political party on whose symbol they had contested the election and whether they are the members of one political party and contested election on the party symbol of other political party. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition,” the court observed. Ravi had contended that the respondent MPs and MLAs were members of one political party but had contested the election on the symbol of another political party which was impermissible under law. He submitted that the sworn affidavit filed by these candidates was false and thus the Form B issued was illegal. On the other hand, the candidates submitted that there were members of the political party on whose symbol they had contested the election. Relying upon the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 of the Election Commission of India, they submitted that a candidate set up by the party at an election shall choose and be allotted the symbol reserved for that political party in that state and no other symbol. The court noted that the issue involved questions as to whether the persons were members of the political party in whose symbol they had contested or whether they belonged to some other political parties. However, the court pointed out that the grievance raised by the petitioners could not be considered in the writ petitions, and as per Article 329B of the Constitution, an election of a legislative candidate could be assailed only by way of an election petition. The court thus disposed of the petitions. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan For M/s.G.R.Associates, Mr.S.Manuraj, Mr.A.P.Balaji For Mr.K.Gowtham Kumar, Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, Mr.Richardson Wilson For M/s.P.Wilson Associates, Mr.R.Govindaraj, Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel Senior Counsel For Mr.A.Akshay Kumar, Mr.J.Saravanavel Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 16 Case Title: ML Ravi v Chief Election Commissioner and Others Case No: W.P.Nos.27375 of 2019 & 12684 of 2021Click here to read/download the judgment

Disputed Question Of Fact Cannot Be Adjudicated On In A Writ Petition: Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Election Of MPs/MLAs

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Disputed Question Of Fact Cannot Be Adjudicated On In A Writ Petition: Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Election Of MPs/MLAs

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers