Baisil Attippety @ Basil A.G. Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF APRIL201411TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9575 of 2014 (V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BAISIL ATTIPPETY @ BASIL A.G. ATTIPETTY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM.P.O., KERALA, KOCHI-682509. BY ADV. SRI.BAISIL ATTIPPETY (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 4TH FLOOR, 'A' WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOK ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0104-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 9575 of 2014 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) ACT, 2013. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED107-2013 IN JAN CHAUKIDARV. UNION OF INDIA, UPHOLDING THE PATNA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT

DATED304-2004. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 509/128/2004 VOL-II. RCC DATED307-2013. P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED119-2010 IN JAMMU & KASHMIR NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY.V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. REPORTED IN (2011 (1) SCC228 P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED911-1975 SENT BY SRI. NANI A. PALKHIWALA TO THE THEN PRIME MINISTER SMT. INDIRA GANDHI. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ A.M. Shaffique, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 9575 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of April, 2014.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext. P1 amendment to the Representation of People Act, 1951. The amendment is as under: "1. (1) This Act may be called the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 10th day of July, 2013.

2. In the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 7, in clause (b), after the words "or Legislative Council of a State", the words "under the provisions of this Chapter, and on no other ground" shall be inserted.

3. In section 62 of the principal Act, after the proviso to sub-section (5), the following proviso shall be inserted , namely:- "Provided further that by reason of the prohibition to vote under this sub-section, a person whose name has been entered in the electoral roll shall not cease to be an elector." 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by this Act, shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times." 2. Learned counsel for the Election Commission submitted that similar challenge was made by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court and a Division Bench of the Delhi W.P(C) No. 9575 of 2014 -:

2. :- High Court had upheld the amendment. It is inter alia held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court at paragraphs 29, 40 and 41 as under: "29. There can be no quibble with the proposition that an enacted law can be declared unconstitutional on the following grounds: (i) Lack of legislative competence; (ii) Violation of Part-III of the Constitution; and (iii) Arbitrariness of the law. xx xx xx 40. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 is consistent with the principle of universal and equal suffrage and the presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty.

41. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. In fact, by the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013, the Parliament has by explicit words overruled the intent which had been read by implication by the Courts into Section 62(5) and consequently, changed the basis of "Court's decision" and is, thus, valid.

3. In the light of the aforesaid view expressed by the Delhi High Court, I do not think that anything further survives to be considered by this Court. I am persuaded to W.P(C) No. 9575 of 2014 -:

3. :- take the same opinion with reference to the present case also. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/