Tweet
Can’t derecognise parties for blockades: Govt to SC
The Supreme Court’s anxiety to strip political parties of their recognition for blocking rail and road traffic met a roadblock on Tuesday as the Centre cited a 2002 apex court ruling that prohibited both the Election Commission and the Court from doing so.
A week ago, the court was upset over lack of any effective curbs to restrain political parties from organising bandhs and hartals, bringing normal life to a standstill. The issue came up before the court for consideration in two separate PILs — one filed by a resident of Mirchpur village and another by former BSF DGP Prakash Singh.
The village Mirchpur had witnessed violence on April 21, 2010 at the instance of Jats who burnt alive two Dalits. Following the arrest of Jats, made possible by the intervention of the Supreme Court, the Jat community uprooted rail tracks and blocked rail and road traffic for days together resulting in a loss of `33 crore to the exchequer. In the other PIL, Singh sought an end to the recurring practice of national highways blocked by political groups especially in the North East leading to the States being cut-off from essential supplies, food and medicines for 100 days together.
Though an attempt was made by the Supreme Court in 2009 to arrest this malpractice by prescribing criminal action and recovery of cost from the political group organising such blockades, lack of implementation rendered the judgment “ineffective”. Pained by the state of affairs the bench revisited the issue seeking a permanent solution to such instances of hooliganism and blatant lawlessness.
The court mulled over the option to direct Election Commission to withdraw recognition granted to political parties involved in such acts. The bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya had asked the Solicitor General RF Nariman whether it was possible for the court to direct the Election Commission to derecognise parties indulging in disruption of rail and road traffic.
In response, Nariman on Tuesday said that the issue in question was decided by a two-judge bench of the SC on May 10, 2002. A question of law then arose over the power of the EC to de-register a political party under Section 29A of Representation of Peoples Act.
The judgment held, “De-registration of a political party is a serious matter as it involves divesting of the party of a statutory status of a registered political party. We are, therefore, of the view that unless there is express power of review conferred upon the Election Commission, the Commission has no power to entertain or enquire into the complaint for de-registering a political party for having violated the Constitutional provisions.”
Satisfied by the response of Nariman, the bench directed its attention on the Haryana Government. The court returned an affidavit filed by the State’s Deputy Commissioner and directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to file a detailed response as to whether the State was willing to cough up the entire amount of `33 crore, since the loss to the exchequer was on account of State’s negligence or inaction. Posting the matter after two weeks, the court also directed the State to report what action had been initiated against the accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Supreme Court’s anxiety to strip political parties of their recognition for blocking rail and road traffic met a roadblock on Tuesday as the Centre cited a 2002 apex court ruling that prohibited both the Election Commission and the Court from doing so.
A week ago, the court was upset over lack of any effective curbs to restrain political parties from organising bandhs and hartals, bringing normal life to a standstill. The issue came up before the court for consideration in two separate PILs — one filed by a resident of Mirchpur village and another by former BSF DGP Prakash Singh.
The village Mirchpur had witnessed violence on April 21, 2010 at the instance of Jats who burnt alive two Dalits. Following the arrest of Jats, made possible by the intervention of the Supreme Court, the Jat community uprooted rail tracks and blocked rail and road traffic for days together resulting in a loss of `33 crore to the exchequer. In the other PIL, Singh sought an end to the recurring practice of national highways blocked by political groups especially in the North East leading to the States being cut-off from essential supplies, food and medicines for 100 days together.
Though an attempt was made by the Supreme Court in 2009 to arrest this malpractice by prescribing criminal action and recovery of cost from the political group organising such blockades, lack of implementation rendered the judgment “ineffective”. Pained by the state of affairs the bench revisited the issue seeking a permanent solution to such instances of hooliganism and blatant lawlessness.
The court mulled over the option to direct Election Commission to withdraw recognition granted to political parties involved in such acts. The bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya had asked the Solicitor General RF Nariman whether it was possible for the court to direct the Election Commission to derecognise parties indulging in disruption of rail and road traffic.
In response, Nariman on Tuesday said that the issue in question was decided by a two-judge bench of the SC on May 10, 2002. A question of law then arose over the power of the EC to de-register a political party under Section 29A of Representation of Peoples Act.
The judgment held, “De-registration of a political party is a serious matter as it involves divesting of the party of a statutory status of a registered political party. We are, therefore, of the view that unless there is express power of review conferred upon the Election Commission, the Commission has no power to entertain or enquire into the complaint for de-registering a political party for having violated the Constitutional provisions.”
Satisfied by the response of Nariman, the bench directed its attention on the Haryana Government. The court returned an affidavit filed by the State’s Deputy Commissioner and directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to file a detailed response as to whether the State was willing to cough up the entire amount of `33 crore, since the loss to the exchequer was on account of State’s negligence or inaction. Posting the matter after two weeks, the court also directed the State to report what action had been initiated against the accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
