Dismissed

Kingshuk Nag, v. The Chief Election Commissioner

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022PIL/293/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of PIL No. 293 of 2014 alleging corruption and abuse of money power in elections. The court noted the Election Commission's detailed affidavit regarding established monitoring mechanisms and holding no further orders necessary, directing the Commission to ensure strict compliance.

What did the court decide?

The public interest litigation is disposed of; the Election Commission of India and the Union of India are directed to ensure strict compliance with statutory provisions and executive instructions.

Kingshuk Nag, Vs The Chief Election Commissioner — Election Law | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA^SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

TAKEN UP^(PlL) NO: 293 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kingshuk Nag, Flat 34, Rama Apartments,^{34 Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-} 500073.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Chief Election Commissioner,, Election^{Commission of lndia,Nirvachan} Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi^- 110^001.

¶12

The State Election Commission,,3rd^{Floor, Budha Bhavan,} M.G.Road,Secunderabad-500003.

¶13

The Chief Electoral Officer,, Telangana,^{Election Commission of lndia, 'H'} Block, South Wing, GA^(Elections) Department,^Secretariat, [-lYderabad.

¶14

Union of lndia,, Ministry of Home Affairs, Home Department,^{Rep. by its} Secretary, North Block, Central Secretariat,^{New Delhi- 'l 1000'1 .}

¶15

The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome^{Tax,, Andhra Pradesh and} Telangana, 1Oth Floor, lncome Tax Tower,^AC Guards,^Hyderabad.

¶16

The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Andhra^{PradeshRegion,} Hyderabad.

¶17

The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Telangana^{Region, Hyderabad.}

¶18

B. State of Telangana,, rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, General Administration} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶19

State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

State of Telangana,, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶21

'1 1.State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the letter dated^{13.11.2014of the petitioner,the High} Court may be^pleased to issue an Order, direction^{or a writ, more particularly one} in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring^{that the abuseof money powerand} free ftow of money beyond the limits of expenditure^{prescribed by Respondent} No.1 for candidates of Parliament and Assembly^{Polls, 2014 by makingmockery} of the^process of democracy as illegal,^{arbitrary and violativeof the provisions of} the Representation of the Peoples^{Act, 1951 and the Hon'bleCourt maybe} pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to formulate new norms to reduce expenses of electioneering and to further direct the^{RespondentsNo. 1 to 3 to} initiate a study to examine the^process through^{whichthe number of seatsin Lok} Sabha and each State Assembly could be tripled

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: LETTER

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRl. AVINESH^DESAI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI.V V PRABHAKARA^RAO

¶27

Counsel forth-e Respondent No.4: SRl.^{N. RAJESHWAR RAO, ASST.} SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7: SRl. J.V. PRASAD, SC^{FOR lT}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No. 8: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION^(TG)

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No. 9: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION^(AP)

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No. 10: GP FOR HOME^(TG)

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No. 11 : GP FOR HOME^(AP)

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

THE HO THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISHCHANDRA} AND

¶35

HON'BLE SRI STICE

¶36

TAKEN UP (PIL) No.293 OF 2014

¶37

OR"DER: Per the Hon'bLe^{tlTeChief JusticeSatisLaCLlaftdra Sha'',l.a)}

¶38

The present^{public interest litigation has been registered} based upon letter^{dated 13. I 1.2014 of a Journalistalleging} corrupt^{practicesin respect of elections in the undividedState} of Andhra Pradesh

¶39

The petitioner^{has shown grave concern in respect of the} corrupt^practices and^{this Court has issued notice to the} Election Commission of^{India as well as Unionof India'}

¶40

A detailed and exhaustive^{counteraffidavit has been filed} by the Election^{Commission ofIndia (for short'"the} Commission")^{and it has been stated that on O4' 10'2010'the} Commission has^{held meeting with all recognized political} parties and discussed^{the issue relating to moneypower and} comprehensive^{instructionshave been issued bythe} Commission to^{check illegal transportationof cash and other} malpractices. it^{has been statedthat the instructionsissuedby} theCommissiondated3o.ll'.2ol2werechallengedbeforethe Madras High Court^{and the Madras High Courthas upheld the} -"*

¶41

¶42

Executive Instructions issued by the Commission and in respect of a petition, which was preferred before Gujarat High Court, the matter was travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP.No. C.C. 20906 of 2OI2 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered judgment dated 30.1 l.2Ol2 and the Commission has issued revised guidelines on the subject. It has been further stated that the Commission has taken all possible steps to keep vigil over the movement of cash iinked with candidates or political parties or items of bribe meant for inducement of electors, liquor and other illicit items during elections and their seizure, Media Certification and Monitoring Committee was set up to keep a watch on media advertisements and suspected cases of paid news and observers were appointed by the Commission. It has been further stated that there are six national recognized political parties, 51 State recognized political parties and 1737 un-recognized political parties as on i3.01.2015 and the Commission has issued instructions to the candidates and political parties to avoid cash transactions during election process and ceiling has also been fixed in the matter. The Commission in exercise of powers conferred under the Representation of People Act, 1951, has issued compendium of instructions on election expenditure monitoring and there is a

¶43

¶44

¶45

robot mechanism in place. It has also been stated that the Commission has issued executive instructions to ensure transparency in the process of election.

¶46

This Court, keeping in view the detailed and exhaustive affidavit filed by the Election Commission of India, is of the opinion that no further orders are required to be^passed in^the present public interest litigation.

¶47

Accordingly, the public interest litigation is^disposedof. Howe-ver, the Election Commission of India and the^{Union of} India shall ensure strict compliance of the statutory^provistons as contained in the l?eprcsentation of People Act,^{195 1, as well} as the executive instructions issued from time to time.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall^stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

SD/-K,VENKAIAH ASSISTANT GISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chief Election Commissioner,,^{Election Commission of lndia,Nirvachan} Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi^- 110 001.

¶54

The State Election Commission,,3rd^{Floor, Budha Bhavan,} tvl.G.Road,Secunderabad-500003.

¶55

e-out€J, - -

¶56

The Chief Electoral Officer,, Telangana, Election Commission of lndia,^'H' Block, South Wing, GA (Elections) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Secretary, Union of lndia,, Ministry of Home Affairs, Home Department, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶58

The Pdncipal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, 1Oth Floor, lncome Tax Tower, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Andhra Pradesh Region, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Telangana Region, Hyderabad. 8. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶61

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶62

I 0. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana,secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶63

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶64

12.One CC to Sri.Svinesh Desai, Advocate IOPUCI

¶65

One CC to Sri. V.V. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate tOpUCl

¶66

One CC to Sri. N. Rajeshwar Rao, Asst. Solicitor General tOpUCl

¶67

One CC to Sri. J.V. Prasad, SC for CT IOPUCI

¶68

l6.TwoCCsto GPfoTGAD(TG), High Court for the State of Tetangana. -[OUT][OUT] I 7. Two CCsIo GP for Home(TG), High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶69

Two CCs to GP for GAD(AP), High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District. [OUTJ

¶70

19.Two CCs to GP for Home(AP), High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District. [OUT]

¶71

20.Two CD Copies.

PIV SBw

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610312022

HE STE )-r:
ctJ [ 5 JUl' 2022 O l
*

¶76

ORDER

¶77

PlL.No.293 ol 2014

¶78

Disposing of the PIL Without costs.

¶79

..'Y
4
\a<

Kingshuk Nag, v. The Chief Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kingshuk Nag, v. The Chief Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Member Secy., Apslsa, Hyd. Vs Secy., Min. of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi and 24 Ors.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs the C.E.O., Cantonment Board Secunderabad

Dr. T.Vijendra Rao Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by The Principal Secretary

O.C. Sankshema Sangham, Hyderabad. Vs the State of Tg.,Mun.Admn.,Hyd.,and Anr.

Swamy S.B. Das, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 6 Ot

Dr.Ch.Dayanand. Secunderabad Vs Secretary, Ministry of Legislative Affairs, New Delhi and 3 Ot

M.M. Baig , Mirza Mahboob Baig, Secbad., and Anr. Vs the Govt.of a.P.,Minorities,Hyd.,and 13 Otrs.

Nedunuri Sri Venkata Nageswar Rao, Secunderabad Vs Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

K. Sammi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sharada Dondlapally Vs Pittala Venkataiah

Union of India Vs Kota Suvarna

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another Vs Ganta Buchiram Reddy and 5 Others

Redapangu Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana And 7 Others

M/s. Krans Projects Private Limited, Vs The South Central Railway (Scr)