Madras High Court Tells TN Election Commission To Videograph Every Stage Of Urban Local Body Polls

The court suggested that the area of storerooms can be notified after polling. The inside, as well as the outside portions of storerooms, can be videographed with CCTVs thereafter, added the Bench.

Courtroom Exchange

The petition was filed by AIADMK through the former Minister and AIADMK's organisational Secretary, D. Jayakumar.

Today, TNSEC filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections will be strictly followed. The SEC also assured the Court that the entire election process from nomination to the counting of votes will be video graphed to prevent illegal activities.

The petitioner had previously submitted that they were constrained to move the High Court since the State Election Commission failed to consider AIADMK's representation dated 1^st November, 2021. According to the petitioner, in the said representation, concerns were also raised about the conduct of elections in multiple phases.

About conducting the urban local body elections in January 2022 as per apex court order dated 29^th September, Senior Counsel appearing for AIADMK, Vijay Narayan, submitted that court's intervention was necessary to ensure free and fair elections without any untoward incidents.

Senior counsel for AIADMK also iterated his allegations that the Madras High Court division bench order on 1^st October, 2021, issuing directions for elections to rural bodies, were wilfully discarded by election officials at the instance of the ruling party.

The counsel submitted that the directions included continuous CCTV or video coverage at all polling stations, counting centres and Strong Rooms and appointment of observers as per Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities and Municipal and Corporation Councils (Elections) Rules, 2006 for each block as against the district wise observers appointed by TNSEC.

However, the bench expressed its doubt regarding the previous directions for the appointment of observers block-wise in the local body elections. The court opined that block-wise appointment is applicable in Assembly elections and not local body elections.

The court also expressed its reservations about AIADMK's submission that there must be some mechanism to place on record the number of pages while giving the nomination to ascertain that none of the supporting documents filed by the candidate is not removed afterwards. According to the petitioner, this was pertinent to avoid an entire round of election petitions. To this, the counsel for TNSEC, S. Sivashanmugam impressed upon the court that there will be hassle if the candidates knowingly place blank pages in between.

Senior counsel Vijay Narayan referred to the affidavit filed and pointed out that numerous nominations made by AIADMK candidates were rejected on trivial grounds or unilaterally marked as withdrawn by another person in the rural body elections. Rule 29 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995, states that the Returning Officer shouldn't reject any nomination paper on the ground of any non-substantial defect. Nominations were rejected on the ground that the Notary Public seal even when it was available and even though notary public seal couldn't be a ground for rejection of nomination.

AIADMK's senior counsel also submitted that the power under Rule 29 to conduct summary enquiry has not been exercised by the election officers in many instances where nominations were rejected on the false ground that the proposer of the candidate had proposed for two candidates, and not one.

"The bureaucracy has made a mockery and democratic process of election" concluded on 16^th October to the rural bodies, he submitted.

Another contention of the counsel was that the ruling party members were actively controlling the course of elections and the Model Code of Conduct was blatantly disregarded in the rural body elections.

Senior Counsel further submitted that the manner in which rural body elections were conducted casts a shadow on the independence of the state election commission and raises serious concerns about the impartial conduct of urban local body elections. The counsel also submitted that the violations have been brought to the notice of the Governor through a representation dated 20^th October, 2021.

On petitioner counsel's plea for comprehensive directions to prevent illegalities during urban body elections, the court observed that it could only work within the legal framework provided. The court cannot issue directions on mere apprehension of unfairness or illegality by the petitioner, it was noted.

Case Title: AIADMK v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission & Anr.

Case No: WP/27138/2021 (Election)