Interference by courts in election process should be to facilitate its completion and not to postpone it: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that it cannot stall elections to local bodies merely because of "certain disgruntled voices" raising objections to the manner in which wards have been formed by the State Election Commission [Anant Baburao Golait vs The State Election Commission of Maharashtra & Ors.].A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice RV Ghuge, based on Supreme Court precedents, held that interference by the writ courts is permissible only to facilitate the election process and its progress."The message of the Supreme Court is loud and clear: interference is permissible to subserve the progress of the election and to facilitate its completion, not when the interference by the Court would have the effect of postponing the elections indefinitely," the Court stated.The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging notifications of ward formations for Maharashtra local body elections and praying for them to be set aside.On behalf of the petitioners, advocate Devdatt P Palodkar contended that because the petitioners approached the Court prior to the election process being set in motion by issuance of notification, orders passed by various Collectors of districts relating to delimitation or allotment of seats, including preparation of electoral rolls, were amenable to challenge in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and Article 243-ZG would not bar the High Court from hearing the petition.The Court, however, refused to interfere with the elections on the following grounds:1. That as per Section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, the remedy of the petitioners would lie in a petition presented in their respective district courts.2. That High Courts have been urged by the Supreme Court to bear in mind self-imposed limitations on their power to act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or give directions which will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections."We have no doubt that it would not be proper for us to interfere, particularly when the elections to the Municipal Councils are imminent and that the election notification would be announced in a day or two, and particularly when none of the writ petitions is intended to facilitate the smooth progress of the elections."3. That the Supreme Court had in Suresh Mahajan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. observed that conducting elections to local bodies was not only a constitutional obligation of the State Election Commission but also of the State government including the Constitutional courts. It was of the opinion that elections to such local bodies cannot brook any delay."On due consideration of the judgment in Suresh Mahajan (supra), we cannot by a judicial fiat stall the elections which are imminent. The same have to be conducted and completed without any delay, as directed by the Supreme Court," the Court said.It then underscored that writs issued under article 226 ought to further public interest and not thwart it."We repeat that the prayers of the writ petitions under consideration do not reveal that a single writ petition is intended to obtain relief for facilitating smooth progress of the elections; on the contrary, the interim prayers in all such writ petitions are such that grant thereof would have the effect of postponing the elections for an indefinite period," it highlighted.Therefore, the Court held that interference was not warranted and dismissed the petitions.Senior advocate RS Deshmukh served as amicus curiae in the matter.[Read Judgment]