The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the ABHM Presidency dispute, involving Swami Chakrapani Ji Maharaj and Sushree Rajya Shri Chaudhuri. The court’s decision sheds light on the complex inter se disputes within the ABHM and the role of the Election Commission of India. Stay informed about the legal intricacies and implications of this case.
Facts
- Civil suits bearing Nos. 147/2021 and 224/2022 were filed before the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
- There is no approved list of office bearers for the parties involved in the suits, hence Form-A and Form-B cannot be accepted from anyone on behalf of these parties.
- Sushree Rajyashree Chaudhuri and Swami Chakrapani Ji Maharaj filed the civil suits seeking recognition as lawful office bearers of ABHM, but their pleas were dismissed.
- ECI directed all Chief Electoral Officers not to accept Form A and Form B from individuals claiming to represent certain unrecognized political parties, including ABHM.
- Disputes regarding the election of office bearers of ABHM have been ongoing since 22.02.2019 and there is no approved list of office bearers for ABHM.
- ECI revisited its decision after receiving objections to Swami Chakrapani’s claim.
- The ECI issued a letter on 27.03.2024 to the Chief Electoral Officers regarding the petitions filed against its decision and list.
- Certain conditions were outlined for a political party to secure a reserved symbol, including submitting Form A signed by the President/Secretary and Form B certifying a candidate contesting elections.
- The Division Bench emphasized that any person claiming to exercise their rights as President or office bearer must seek a declaration to that effect.
- The court clarified that holding office cannot be based on others not approaching the court.
- The Division Bench reiterated that inter se disputes within unrecognized political parties must be resolved through a civil suit.
- It was highlighted that the Election Commission of India does not possess the authority to decide inter se disputes of unrecognized political parties.
- The trial court found that Swami Chakrapani Ji Maharaj failed to establish a prima facie case.
Arguments
- Swami Chakrapani Ji Maharaj, Ms. Sushree Rajya Shri Chaudhuri and Munna Kumar Sharma claim to be National President of ABHM.
- Dismissal of civil suit for non-prosecution led to the Appellant not being recognized as National President.
- The inter se internal disputes within ABHM since 2004 need to be resolved in a civil court.
- Appellant’s petitioners were advised to file an election petition if their nomination papers on behalf of ABHM were not accepted.
- ECI is estopped from objecting petitioners from contesting elections for ABHM candidate due to their own actions.
- ECI does not have the authority to adjudicate internal disputes of an unrecognized political party like ABHM.
- The Division Bench noted unresolved disputes regarding office bearers of ABHM and directed civil suit resolution.
- ECI cannot accept Form A and Form B on behalf of ABHM due to ongoing internal disputes.
- Appellant’s only remedy is to seek declaration in civil suit to claim presidentship of ABHM.
- Challenges to Division Bench orders were unsuccessful, affirming the need for civil suit declaration.
- In the case of Chandra Prakash Kaushik, the Court emphasized the significance of transparency and fairness in the election process.
- Swami Chakrapani’s case highlighted the importance of upholding democratic principles and ensuring free and fair elections.
- The Janata Party v. Election Commission of India case pertained to ensuring the integrity and credibility of the electoral process.
- These cases collectively underscore the critical role of the Election Commission in safeguarding the democratic values and principles of the electoral system.
Analysis
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) could not have recognized Swami Chakrapani as the President of ABHM on 11.11.2010 due to ABHM being an unrecognized political party.
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not allow for unequal treatment, thus ECI cannot resolve internal disputes of an unrecognized political party.
- ECI’s decision on 11.11.2010 was an administrative decision, not a quasi-judicial one as ECI lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes in unrecognized political parties.
- Any claim to the National President position in ABHM is disputed, and ECI cannot be directed to recognize any individual without resolution of internal disputes.
- Legal recourse through a declaratory suit or civil remedy is advised for claiming the National presidentship of ABHM, instead of relying on ECI decisions.
- Challenges to the presidency claim in ABHM are pending civil suits, and ECI cannot arbitrate in the face of ongoing rival claims.
- ECI’s corrective action on 14.01.2011 was deemed lawful, and the decision to recognize Chakrapani over others on 11.11.2010 was beyond ECI’s jurisdiction.
- The court should not interfere with ECI’s decisions if found correct in law, even if corrective action is taken to rectify earlier errors.
- Inter se disputes within ABHM remain unresolved, with civil suits pending, and ECI cannot make a conclusive decision on presidency claims.
- The court refrains from interfering with ongoing election processes and disputes within ABHM at this stage of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- The Supreme Court in Janata Dal (Samajwadi) v. Election Commission of India has empowered ECI to rescind its orders even without specific power.
- Referenced case State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati – ECI’s past acts do not grant legal right to petitioners for similar benefits.
- Past incidents of ECI accepting Form A and Form B for ABHM do not support petitioners’ case.
- In Janata Party case, ECI’s power does not extend to resolving disputes between rival sections of an unrecognized political party like ABHM.
- R.R. Verma v. UOI established that administrative decisions are not bound by judicial procedural rules and restrictions.
- The court must not interfere in the election process that is already underway.
- It must prevent any attempts to delay, interrupt, or stall the election proceedings.
- Caution is needed to avoid petitions that appear innocent but have hidden agendas.
- Courts must be careful in handling election disputes that are not barred by Article 329(b) during ongoing election proceedings.
Decision
- Lok Sabha Elections were already over
- Notification for the seventh phase of the elections had been issued
- Petitions dismissed as the last date for filing nominations in the seventh phase is ending soon
- Prayers made in the petitions cannot be acceded to
Case Title: UMED SINGH Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (2024:DHC:3962)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-6691/2024
