Supreme Court stays HC directive

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, OCT. 16. The Supreme Court today through an interim order in the `Kerala political parties - hartal case' stayed a directive issued by the Kerala High Court on June 1, 2000, to the Election Commission (EC) to entertain complaints, if made, for deregistration or cancellation of registration of a registered political party or association which called for `hartal' involving use of force in violation of Section 29 A (5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Registration with the EC of associations and bodies as political parties).

According to the impugned directive of the High Court (HC), the EC was required to take decisions on such complaints after a fair hearing, if it was warranted by the circumstances of the case.

The Bench, also stayed a directive issued by the High Court to the EC to consider and dispose of, in accordance with law, a given specified representation (in 1998) after giving all the affected parties an opportunity of being heard.

The Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Dr. A. S. Anand, Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti and Mr. Justice Shivraj V. Patil, made the order while issuing notices to respondents, namely, the State of Kerala, the Director- General of Police (DGP) and the Institute of Social Welfare (petitioner before the HC) on two connected special leave petitions (SLPs) from the Congress(I) and the CPI(M) against the Kerala High Court's judgment on June 1, 2000.

Some of the main pleas in the SLPs were: that no power was conferred on the EC under the R.P. Act, 1951 to deregister a political party and the power to deregister ``is a drastic power, and in the absence of a specific enabling provision, this action cannot be taken'' and that the power to register a political party under Sec. 29 A did not include by any implication, the power to deregister that party.

Even if a political party called for a `peaceful demonstration', some other miscreants could transmute it into a `bandh' and land the political party into trouble and this would ``have drastic consequences, and democratic rights would stand infracted'' (if the impugned direction of High Court was given effect), the SLP pleaded.

The High Court, under Article 226 ``is not competent to hold in its limited jurisdiction that the `hartal' call transmuted into a ``bandh'' at a later stage, the SLP urged.

The High Court's judgment declared that ``the enforcement of a hartal call by force, intimidation, physical or mental and coercion amounted to an unconstitutional act and a party had no right to enforce it by resorting to force or intimidation.''

The court also directed the State, Chief Secretary to the State, DGP and all the administrative authorities and police officers in the State to implement strictly the directives dated February 4, 1999, given by the DGP (as set out fully in the HC judgment).

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Club planned for disabled children
Next     : Poojari rules out party poll postponement