Judgment:
ORDER
B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.
1. These writ petitions raise a common complaint regarding the directives issued by the Election Commission of India in its proceedings No.3/4/2001 JS.II dated 31-1-2001 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to dispense with the production of documentary evidence ofidentity of the voters at the time of casing the votes by the voters who do not possess such documents in the current by-elections of Giddalur-123 and Badve-155 Assembly Constituencies scheduled on 19-2-2001.
2. Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contends that these directives are without any jurisdiction as being ultra vires of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and the Rules under the caption: The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The learned senior Counsel has adverted our attention to Section 62 of the Act to stress his point that every person whose name is enlisted in the Voters' List is entitled as of right to exercise his franchise and such a right is unfettered and cannot be scuttled down by any act of election Commission or otherwise and that such an attempt would violate the constitutional right of the voter to exercise his franchise which is the essence of the democracy by which this nation is governed. He makes us to survey the provisions of the Act as also the Rules and submits that there is absolutely no power to the Election Commission to issue a sort of a guidelines as assailed in these writ petitions. Learned Counsel submits that taking of steps to avoid impersonation of voters is a welcome measure and that Rule 35 which has been framed to achieve the said objective serves the purpose and the impugned directives run contra to the said Rules and are unsustainable. He cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, : [1984]3SCR74 , in support of his proposition that the Election Commission cannot transgress its limits stated in Article 324 of Indian Constitution, the Act and the Rules made thereunder and adverts our attention to what is stated by the Supreme Court in paragraph-25 of the judgment which reads:
'(a) when there is no Parliamentary legislation of rule made under the said legislation, the Commission is free to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections,
(b) where there is an Act and express Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the Commission to override the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words, the powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than to supplant the law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Article 324.
(c) Where the Act or the rules are silent, the Commission has no doubt plenary powers under Article 324 to give any direction in respect of the conduct of election, and
(d) where a particular direction by the Commission is submitted to the Government for approval as required by the Rules, it is not open to the Commission to go ahead with implementation of it as its own sweet will even if the approval of the Government is not given.'
3. Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. C.P. Sarathy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submits that the directives issued are not in conflict with the objectives to be achieved in the shape of issuing of Electronic Photo Identity Cards (for short 'EPIC Cards'), but cent per cent issuance of such identity cards could not be achieved for various reasons beyond the control of the officials of the Election Commission as some voters have died and some voters have migrated and by way of abundant caution and to ensure that such persons who have missed the EPIC cardswould exercise their franchise and for proper identification of such persons who could not obtain EPIC cards, the supplemental steps were taken for proper identification of voters and to avoid impersonation, several such documents/ certificates are made permissible to identify the Voters and that not only rich and middle-class but the poor and generally speaking all the sections of the Society can avail of the said method of proof of identification and that the officials of the polling booths will accept any sort of identification and even certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer and directives have been issued in the best interests of maintaining democratic norms and not otherwise and that such directives are by no means ultra vires the Act and Rules or arbitrary. Mr. C.P. Sarathy also draws our attention to Rule 37 of the Rules stating that it is not that persons having EPIC cards are automatically allowed to exercise their franchise and that such persons who do not carry EPIC cards are subjected to scrutiny to the satisfaction of the Polling Officer and are disentitled to exercise their franchise and that the same method is also directed to be adopted in the directives which are assailed in these writ petitions and by no means there is any discriminatory procedure followed and that the directives stand to the scrutiny of Article 14 of Indian Constitution.
4. The power of the Election Commission flows from Article 324 of India Constitution and there need not be any debate on that point. The Act is in consonance with Article 324 and provides a rule-making power for issuance of Rules and the Rules have been stated supra. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 35 obligates the elections, who have been supplied with identity cards under the provisions of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to produce their identity cards before the Presiding Officer or the Polling Officer authorised by him in that behalf.In the data provided before us, it is stated that in respect of the two constituencies, the percentage of issuance of EPIC cards is 74.12% and 80.93% for Giddalur and Badvel constituencies respectively. There is no material placed before us to doubt this statement. It may be due to several reasons as already submitted by Mr. C.P. Sarathy on behalf of the Election Commission that issuance of cent per cent EPIC cards was not possible. But, the Election Commission was alive to the situation, may be some eligible voters could not avail of the opportunity of getting EPIC cards and as such, evolved a method of issuing the impugned directives to see that no eligible voter loses his right of exercising the franchise by merely not obtaining the EPIC cards and in fact, this is a welcome measure. These directives which are only supplemental to ensure that all the eligible voters are facilitated to exercise their franchise but by subjecting themselves to scrutiny to avoid impersonation and obtaining of the documents/certificates regarding identification as enumerated in the directives cannot be said to run contra to Rule 35 of the Rules, as contended on behalf of writ-petitioners. As such, we uphold the action of the Election Commission of India in issuing directives dated 31-1-2001.
5. But, we direct the Collectors of Cuddapah and Prakasam districts to publish the said directives dated 31-1-2001 at the Mandal Revenue Offices as also Gram Panchayats falling under the above two constituencies. The Collectors are directed to instruct the Village Administrative Officers in these two constituencies to make themselves available to the persons seeking identity cards. Further, the Election Commission is directed to publish the said directives oil 17th February, 2001 in the local editions of Eenadu and Vaartha telugu dailies in Prakasam and Cuddapah districts.
6. The writ petitions are dismissed subject to the above directions. No orders as to costs.