ARTICLE 329(b) & ELECTION COMMISSION’S POWERS

Why in the News?

The Election Commission (EC) recently invoked Article 329(b) to bar judicial intervention in ongoing elections, sparking debates on:

• Whether courts can scrutinize alleged electoral malpractices (e.g., EVM tampering, voter suppression) during elections.
• The balance between electoral autonomy and judicial accountability.

Article 329(b)

• Text: “No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided by law.”
• Objective:
  • Ensure uninterrupted electoral process by preventing courts from intervening mid-election.
  • Centralize election dispute resolution through post-election petitions (under the Representation of the People Act, 1951).

Supreme Court’s Interpretation

Key Judgments:

1. N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer (1952):
   • Ruling: Courts cannot interfere in electoral processes once elections are notified under Article 329(b).
   • Reasoning: Elections are time-bound; judicial delays could derail democracy.
2. Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner (1977):
   • Clarification: Article 329(b) bars judicial review only on “election matters” (e.g., nominations, voting).
   • Exception: Courts can intervene if EC acts with mala fide intent or violates constitutional principles.

Recent Debates:

• Can courts address pre-poll violations (e.g., hate speech, bribery) under Article 329(b)?
• Does Article 329(b) shield the EC from scrutiny even in cases of grave electoral fraud?

Election Commission’s Powers & Limitations

• Constitutional Basis: Article 324 grants the EC superintendence, direction, and control over elections.
• Key Powers:
  1. Model Code of Conduct (MCC): Enforce ethical campaigning.
  2. Defer/Cancel Elections: In cases of violence or malpractice.
  3. Disqualify Candidates: For corrupt practices (post-trial).
• Limitations:
  • No power to prosecute offenders; relies on police and courts.
  • Post-facto jurisdiction: Most actions (e.g., disqualification) occur after elections.

Significance of Article 329(b)

1. Electoral Efficiency: Prevents judicial delays and ensures timely election results.
2. EC’s Autonomy: Shields EC from political or judicial pressure during elections.
3. Legal Certainty: Centralizes disputes under election tribunals, avoiding conflicting court orders.

Criticisms & Challenges

1. Accountability Gap:
   • EC’s decisions (e.g., delaying polls, ignoring MCC violations) remain unchallenged until post-election.
   • Example: Allegations of EC inaction during 2019 General Elections (voter suppression in WB).
2. Judicial Overreach Concerns:
   • Recent PILs demand SC to intervene in electoral malpractices (e.g., electoral bonds transparency).
3. Delayed Justice:
   • Election petitions take years to resolve, defeating the purpose of timely redressal.