Judgment:
ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of respondents in not permitting the MLAs/MPs and other leaders belonging to the Congress party to act as Polling Agents in some of the Polling Stations of 155-Badvel Assembly constituency of Cuddapah district, in the bye-election scheduled on 19-2-2001 on the ground that they are outsiders of the said constituency, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. The impugned action is communicated vide proceedings No.576/12/2001/JS-II dated 15-2-2001 which reads:
'I am directed to invite your attention to the Commission's Circular No.464/INST/ 97 (MIN)/PLN dated 3rd March, 1997 wherein it was clarified that a Minister shall not be allowed to function as an election agent, polling agent or a counting agent of any candidate at any election.
2. It has been observed by the Commission that sometimes in the elections a candidate appoints a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly as his polling agent or counting agent. There have been objections raised from several quarters where this has occurred, on the ground that the polling and counting personnel feel overawed by the presence of Members of parliament or the Members of Legislative Assembliesappointed as polling agents or counting agents. Further, most of those Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies have been provided with armed security. The Commission feels that these MPs and MLAs with their security personnel cannot be allowed to enter and remain inside the polling stations and counting centers. Nor can they, whose security requirements have been assessed by the State authorities be asked to remain inside the polling station or the counting centers without their security cover that they are required to have by virtue of the assessment of the State Government concerned. They cannot also be allowed to jeopardise their security by surrendering the same, even if they do so on their own as the security cover is not a matter of one's own choice to be exercised by recipient of such security.
3. The Commission, has, therefore, decided that a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, having security cover, shall not be allowed to function as a polling agent or a counting agent of any candidate. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.'
2. Mr. D. Sudarshana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of such directives is contrary to the Act and the Rules made thereunder and that is with the oblique motive of preventing the fair elections. Mr. C.P. Sarathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submits that in order to see that the elections are smooth and the franchise is not unduly influenced with the presence of the armed MLAs/MPs, proper steps have been take by issuing the guidelines dated 15-2-2001 in proceedings No.576/12/ 2001/JS-II and that they cannot be understood as curtailing the right of thecontestants to have their Polling Agents, but contestants are not having unfettered right to have the Polling Agents with arms as the presence of such persons will have influence on the voters. He cites Section 134-B of the Representation of People Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') which reads:
'134-B: Prohibition of going armed to or near a polling station :--(1) No person, other than the returning officer, the presiding officer, any police officer and any other person appointed to maintain peace and order at a polling station who is on duty at the polling station, shall, on a polling day, go armed with arms, as defined in the Arms Act, 1959, of any kind within the neighbourhood of a polling station.'
Mr. C.P. Sarathy then submits that the guidelines dated 15-2-2001 are in consonance with the Act and there is no discrimination made as local or non-local MLA/MP and the only embargo is that no MLA/MP who has been provided with security guard shall enter the arena of the polling station.
3. Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate-General has cited the Rules i.e., the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules') and particularly Rules 32 and 36 of the Rules. Under Rule 32, the Presiding Officer shall regulate the number of electors to be admitted at any one time inside the polling station and excluded therefrom certain persons. The relevant among the sub-rules of the Rule 32 is sub-rule (d) which is in the nature of regulation and which conforms to Section 134-B of the Act. Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan also submits that the polling agent is empowered to challenge the identity of person and to do all that is necessary to safeguard the interest of the contestants on whose behalf he acts as polling agent and that the impugnedguidelines dated 15-2-2001 are issued by the Election Commission only to ensure free and fair franchise and that there is no violation of either the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. In fact, they advance the object of free and fair elections, which is the essence of democracy.
4. As we have seen the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Polling Agents are allowed to be present to safeguard the interests of the contestants. They are entitled to participate in the matter relating to the fair conduct of elections and such a right of the contestant to have such polling Agent is not denied. If there is a total curtailment of having such a Polling Agent of his choice, certainly there will be infraction of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. But, reading Section 134-B of the Act as also Rules 32 and 36 of the Rules leave no doubt regarding the power of the Election Commission to regulate the manner relating to the nomination of the Polling Agent by the contestant. Such regulation, which would not interfere with the discretion of the contestant and which would further advance the cause of free and fair franchise can never be said to be a curtailment of the right of the contestant. Not allowing a Polling Agent, who is covered with security guard, is a salutary principle and cannot be found fault with. In fact, the impugned guidelines dated 15-2-2001 only focusses on the said aspect of not allowing MLAs/ MPs, who are provided with security cover to act as Polling Agents and not such MLAs/MPs, who are not having such security cover. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.