Apex Court Refuses To Grant Relief To YSRCP After ECI Relaxed Postal Ballot Norms Regarding Form 13A In Andhra Pradesh
|The Supreme Court, today, dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party('YSRCP') challenging the relaxation of postal ballot norms in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Petition was filed after the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to entertain a writ petition on the grounds that the issue falls under the domain of Chapter II of the Representation of Peoples Act,1951 and YSRCP should challenge the impugned proceedings in a properly constituted election petition.
The Vacation Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered, "In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in this petition. Stands dismissed."
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the YSRCP and submitted that on May 30, the Election Commission of India vide circular changed the postal ballot rules and the same was applicable to the State. He further said that according to the circular, Form 13A will be accepted even if it lacks the name and designation of the attesting officer, provided it includes the attesting officer's signature. He further submitted that in the declaration form in Form 13A, even if the attesting officer does not put his name and designation or does not put his seal, it shall be considered a valid one, which was not in consonance with the provisions of the Rules.
He further submitted that a declaration form which does not contain the attestor’s name, address and designation, as specified under Form 13A cannot be treated as a valid declaration form and in the absence of a valid declaration form, the ballot paper contained therein has to be rejected.
He said, "At the end of the elections, a non-statutory amendment, a piece of paper, gives a go-by to the statutory rules...this is ultra vires...and only for Andhra."
Justice Kumar said, "You are very expert in the Electoral rules are concerned... rules are always handmaid of justice."
Singhvi also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others(2000).
The High Court had observed, "In the facts of the present case, as seen from the averments in the writ affidavit, no malafide action on the part of the 1st respondent is attributed, in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 30.05.2024. The letter issued by the 1st respondent cannot be considered as an arbitrary order for it to fall within the principles laid down by the Apex court in the case of Ashok Kumar. Apart from that, the impugned proceedings do not seem to explicitly contravene Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961 to interdict the procedure of counting of votes at this stage."
The High Court had also held, "Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute raised in the present case would fall under the domain of Chapter II of R.P.Act,1951 and the petitioners should challenge the impugned proceedings in a properly constituted election petition. It is further observed that in case of any such remedy being availed by the petitioners, the observations made herein above will not come in the way of deciding the petition filed under Section 80 of the R.P.Act,1951."
Cause Title: YSR Congress Party and Anr. v. Election Commission of India and Anr. (Diary No. 25729 of 2024)