Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Local Body Elections As SEC Did Not Give 4 Weeks Model Code of Conduct

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the elections held to Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTC) and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies(ZPTC) on April 8 on the ground that there was no mandatory gap of four weeks of Model Code of Conduct between the election notifications and the date of elections.The High Court dubbed the decision of the State Election Commission to resume local body polls in Andhra Pradesh without imposing Model Code of Conduct for four weeks prior to the notified date of polling as "hasty".The Court has ordered the SEC to issue notification afresh resuming the election process for MPTCs and ZPTCs from where it was stopped, giving 4 weeks time gap for MCC. A Single Bench of Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy has held that the SEC's notification dated April 1, 2021 to resume elections to the Mandal and Zila Parishads, that were postponed last year in view of raging Covid-19 pandemic, is illegal on two counts: 1. It is contrary to the direction issued in this regard by the Supreme Court last year, directing the SEC to impose the MCC four weeks before the notified date of polling. 2. It would scuttle the level play field of political parties and their candidates in the proposed election as no opportunity of campaigning the candidates of political parties was afforded virtually. The Court slammed the State Election Commissioner for purposely misinterpreting the Supreme Court's judgment to construe the four weeks period as an outer limit. "The order passed by the Supreme Court is clear and categorical. On reading the said order, even a common man who can read, write and understand the English language can easily find out the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the order. But, here the State Election Commissioner, who worked as Chief Secretary to the State being a senior most retired IAS Officer, could not understand the simple direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in right perspective, which creates doubt as to her suitability and fitness to the post of Election Commissioner," the Bench sternly remarked. The High Court noted that the State Election Commissioner issued the impugned notification on the day when she took charge of the office, even without looking into the purport of the order issued by the Supreme Court. "Such act of respondent No.1 can be described as democratic backsliding, it is also known as autocratization and de-democratization. It is a gradual decline in the quality of democracy and the opposite of democratization, which may result in the State losing its democratic qualities, becoming an autocracy or authoritarian regime," the Court observed. It added that the Democratic decline is caused by the "state-led weakening of political institutions" that sustain the democratic system, such as the peaceful transition of power or electoral systems. Democratic Backsliding The High Court dubbed the SEC's conduct as 'executive aggrandizement'— a form of democratic backsliding (decline) where institutional changes are made through legal channels, making it seem as if the elected official has a democratic mandate. Some examples of executive aggrandizement are the decline of media freedom and the weakening of the rule of law (i.e., judicial and bureaucratic restraints on the government), such as when judicial autonomy is threatened, the Bench said. Another reason for democratic backsliding, the Bench observed, is strategic harassment and manipulation during elections. "This form of democratic backsliding entails the impairment of free and fair elections through tactics such as blocking media access, disqualifying opposition leaders, or harassing opponents. This form of backsliding is done in such a way that the elections do not appear to be rigged and rarely involves any apparent violations of the law, making it difficult for the Election observer to observe these misconducts," it observed. Background In March 2020, the Supreme Court had upheld SEC's decision withholding/suspending the election process of MPTCs / ZPTCs and Urban local bodies due to threat of pandemic. It held, "We do not see any reason why this Court should interfere with the decision of the Respondent - Election Commission to postpone the elections particularly since the postponement is due to the possible outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic in the country. We therefore decline to interfere with the said decision of the Election Commission". SC Declines To Interfere With EC's Decision To Postpone Andhra Local Body Polls Because Of Corona Outbreak The Top Court further ordered, "We direct that since the Election Commission has already taken the decision to postpone the Elections, there shall be a post decisional consultation with the State of Andhra Pradesh before the next date is notified by the Election Commission. The Model Code of Conduct for the elections ...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Local Body Elections As SEC Did Not Give 4 Weeks Model Code of Conduct

Akshita Saxena

Tags