AP High Court directs EC to hold elections

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, June 30: The AP High Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission to hold byelections in Vemulawada and Sircilla Assembly constituencies along with the byelections scheduled for 10 other constituencies on July 27.

A division bench comprising Justice V.V.S. Rao and Justice

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar gave this directive while allowing a writ petition filed by the Telangana Rastra Samiti. Sircilla was represented by Mr K.T. Rama Rao, son of the TRS chief, Mr K. Chandrasekhar Rao, and Vemulawada by Mr Ch Ramesh of the TD, who subsequently joined the TRS.

The EC had withheld the by-elections to both the constituencies as petitions were pending from the runners-up in the 2009 elections who wanted to be declared winners. The TRS welcomed the judgment.

Asked about the judgment, the Chief Electoral officer, Dr I.V. Subba Rao, told this newspaper that he had informed the EC. The Chief Election Commissioner, Mr Navim Chawla, told him that the full commission will take a decision on Thursday. Mr Rao said there was no problem in holding the bypolls since the electoral rools had been published for the two seats also.

The HC observed that the pendency of election petitions and the uncertain consequences that might follow would not in any manner dilute the effect of Section 151A of Representation of Peoples (RP) Act especially when the Speaker of Assembly has already notified the vacancies.

The bench said that Section 150 of the RP Act was silent on a seat becoming vacant during pendency of election petition. “But the silence in this regard does not enable withholding by-election,” said the judges.

Referring to the powers of the EC in withholding the election, the judges said, "It is not the case before us that the EC has consulted with the Centre and certified not to hold elections to two constituencies."

The bench said even if the elected candidate resigns during pendency of election petition against him, a by-election has to be held within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy.

"Even if the petitioners in the two election petitions pending before the court win...the court can always deny the relief,” said the judges.

Referring to the apex court’s findings in Sanjeevayya case, the court also said the pendency of election petition and the possible consequences could not be used to ignore Section 151A.

The bench further said Article 190(3) (b) of the Constitution does not admit such differentiation and any vacancy that arises should be filled through as by-election within the period mandated by the Parliament.