| NEW DELHI, june 5:
The stay on the June 21 poll to 65 Rajya Sabha seats has precipitated a crisis as the Government and the Election Commission today accused the Supreme Court of violating the Constitution by interfering with an ongoing election process.
In separate applications seeking immediate vacation of the stay order, they pointed out that the President and EC had already issued the necessary notifications yesterday morning when a vacation bench of Justice Ruma Pal and Justice B.N. Agarwal passed the stay order.
The Centre and EC alleged that the stay order infringed on Art 329(b) of the Constitution which makes it clear that no election ‘‘shall be called in question’’ from the date of the notification to the declaration of results.
 | | | | RELATED STORIES |
|
|
The court had passed the stay order on a petition filed by journalist Kuldip Nayar challenging the amendments made last year to dispense with the secret ballot and domicile requirement for elections to the Upper House.
Questioning the urgency displayed in staying the ongoing election, the EC pointed that it had already conducted two rounds of Rajya Sabha elections since the new law came into existence last year.
Though the EC wanted the court to hear its application immediately, the registry simply said that the papers would be placed on Monday before a fresh vacation bench comprising Justice P V Reddy and Justice Arijit Pasayat.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever interfered with an ongoing election process. The irony is, it has on several occasions restrained high courts from doing so citing the bar imposed by Article 329(b).
The Government and the EC, therefore, quoted judicial precedents to buttress their case for vacating the stay immediately:
• In Mohinder Singh Gill vs the Chief Election Commissioner, the Supreme Court held that Article 329(b) was ‘‘a blanket ban on litigative challenges to electoral steps’’ taken by the EC ‘‘commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating the in the final declaration of the returned candidate.’’
• In N P Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, the SC said categorically that Art 329(b) was ‘‘primarily intended to exclude or oust the jurisdiction of all courts in regard to electoral matters.’’
Submitting that yesterday’s stay order had ‘‘displaced’’ the entire programme of filling 65 vacancies that have arised in the Rajya Sabha, the Government said: ‘‘The Constitution does not contemplate hiatus in the matter of election to Members of Parliament.’’
The EC took strong objection to the fact that the Supreme Court had disrupted the current election without even giving a hearing to it. The court had issued notice to the EC while passing the stay order and adjourning Nayar’s petition to June 14.
|
