The petitioner sought directions to amend election rules in Maharashtra to require a 50% majority vote. The Court held it lacked power to direct the legislature to amend the Representation of People Act, 1951, and dismissed the petition.
The petition seeking directions to amend election rules was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SSK/5
1
PILL 84.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 84 OF 2011
Tekchand Gopaldas Khanchandani ....Petitioner Versus State Election Commissioner & ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Tekchand G Khanchandani, petitioner in person. Mrs. Anjali Helekar, AGP for the State.
CORAM : MOHIT S SHAH, C.J. &
RANJIT MORE, J.
DATED :2nd February, 2012.
P.C.:
In this petition, purporting to be a PIL, the petitioner has prayed for a relief of electoral reform. The prayer reads as under:
“a. The Petitioner therefore prays your Honour to give directions to State Election Commissioner and State Government of Maharashtra to amend rules of “largest number” to “majority” of votes polled. In other words any candidate who contest election must secure more than 50% of votes polled to the representation of the people’s act 1951 and the context of election rules 1961, Section 49 O and 64 is annexed herewith and marked Exhibit No.A-27 and A-28.
If the candidate secures more than 50% of the votes polled
SSK/5
2
PILL 84.11
he should be declared elected and if no one secures more than 50% which is the story of the past again election commission should hold election between best of two who secured larger number of votes polled.
During the re-election we may introduce system of “Not to vote” in any candidates favour, as their choice. Here if candidate fails to secure more than 50% of votes polled than no one should be declared elected. In that case executive such as Ward Officer,/Assistant Municipal Commissioner may take care of the constituency.
Citizen should not be forced to elect any person who does not have support of more than fifty percent of electors polled.”
“When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention (of) Parliament... and
SSK/5
3
PILL 84.11
then he must supplement the written word so as to give ‘force and life’ to the intention of the Legislature.....A Judge should ask himself the question how if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have strengthened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.:
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to amend the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Whether the Court has power to direct legislative amendment of election rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. AsherReferred¶22
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 ALL ER 155 at 164
Tekchand Gopaldas Khanchandani
State Election Commissioner & ors.
Mohit S Shah
Ranjit More
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
