Disposed

M.Rupa v. The State Election Commission

Madras HC8 Oct 2021WP/22080/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to allow the petitioner to take videographs at polling and counting booths in Kallakuruchi District. The court noted that identical prayers were addressed in a PIL, and the respondents had already issued adequate orders, rendering this petition unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no new direction granted as relief sought was addressed in a concurrent PIL.

M.Rupa Vs The State Election Commission — Election Law | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

W.P.No.22080 of 2021

M.Rupa ...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Election Commission, Rep. by its Commissioner, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Opposite to Koyembedu Bus Stand,

¶9

Chennai – 600 106.

¶10

The District Collector / District Municipal Election Officer, Kallakuruchi District – 606 213.

¶11

The Assistant Election Officer, Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi – 606 202. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 04.10.2021 and consequentially, to allow to take video graphs on her own cost in all the polling booths and counting booths of petitioner ward in ward No.20 (Malaikottalam), Kallakuruchi District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi

¶14

For R1 : Ms.R.Anitha for Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam Standing Counsel for State Election Commission

¶15

For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Muthukumar

¶16

State Government Pleader

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (Through Video Conferencing)

¶20

The petitioner seeks for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 04.10.2021, and consequentially, to allow to take videographs on her own cost in all the polling booths and counting booths of petitioner's ward in Ward No.20 (Malaikottalam), Kallakuruchi District.

¶21

2.More or less identical prayer was sought for by a political party in a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.20671 of 2021, which was heard by the Hon'ble First Bench and by order dated 01.10.2021, necessary observations and directions have been issued. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :

¶22

“4.Learned Advocate-General has also agreed that CCTVs would be installed outside the strong-rooms and even inside the strongrooms with continuous coverage to ensure that the movement of any person approaching the strong-room and the activities of any person within the strong-room are captured.

¶23

5.As to the location of the counting centres and the strongrooms, there can be no objection in such locations being made public to all the political parties.

¶24

6.A further request is made by the petitioning political party to the effect that the identities of the micro-observers should be made known to all political parties so that complaints may be carried to such micro-observers. To this, learned AdvocateGeneral says that that would compromise the position of the micro-observers and defeat the purpose of such observers being appointed to quietly observe and unobtrusively film the process of voting or the activities in and around the polling booths. However, learned Advocate-General has agreed to the alternative suggestion that instead of nine senior level All India Service Officers being appointed as observers to oversee one district each, senior officers would be appointed in every block so that every district will have as many observers as there are blocks in such district. Mr.Vijay Narayan has agreed to the revised proposal on such aspect since observers within a particular block can be easily accessed as, even if

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

there is a report of any untoward incident, and it is not difficult for the observer to reach another end of the block in quick time.

¶27

7.It is hoped that the elections for the local

¶28

bodies are conducted in the same spirit as this matter has been addressed in court. All government functionaries must ensure the free and fair conduct of the polls so that there is no possibility of any grievance or complaint.”

¶29

3.The petitioner would state that she is willing to bear the

¶30

cost. We do appreciate the stand taken by the petitioner to bear the cost. However, pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble First Bench, adequate orders have been issued by the respondents themselves, and the petitioner need not have any apprehension, and the directions issued by the Hon'ble First Bench shall be scrupulously followed by the respondents.

¶31

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶32

s/dAssistant Registrar

¶33

True Copy

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶35

mkn To

¶36

The Commissioner,

¶37

State Election Commission, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Opposite to Koyembedu Bus Stand, Chennai – 600 106.

¶38

The District Collector /

¶39

District Municipal Election Officer, Kallakuruchi District – 606 213.

¶40

The Assistant Election Officer, Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi – 606 202.

¶41

+1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 53152.

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocate sr 53060.

¶43

W.P.No.22080 of 2021

¶44

JPII(CO) SP(28/10/2021)

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Rupa v. The State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rupa v. The State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Vs M/S K.v.Education Trust

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

R. Savithri Naidu Vs Income Tax Officer

Muthummal Vs The State Election Commissioner

C.Ponnusamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu

C.Ponnusamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu