High court dismisses the case filed by DMK

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition by the DMK challenging the constitutional validity of Section 60 (c) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to inform a section of the electorate makes. Such as people over the age of 80, physically disabled, under quarantine due to COVID-19 and those involved in essential services, who can choose to cast their votes via postal ballot instead of going to polling stations .

Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamurthy also rejected the DMK’s contention that the ECI had no jurisdiction to issue guidelines regarding the manner of such postal vote. The judges said that the Commission had an absolute authority under Article 324 of the Constitution to exercise superintendence and control over elections. He further found no arbitrariness on the part of the Commission in the choice of those persons who could be allowed to cast votes through postal ballot.

The idea appears to be for those who cannot physically attend the polling station to cast their votes, the First Division Bench stated and said: “If there is such an idea, the classes of persons admitted are “There is no arbitrariness. According to the amendments to the Code of Conduct Elections of 1961 and 2020, the object in particular appears to bear the basic right of such individuals to participate in the democratic process.”

It also rejected the argument that there was excessive delegation of powers on the Commission.

“If there is excessive delegation in favor of the Election Commission, there may be little room to question the authority of the Commission. On the other hand, if the Election Commission is seen to be acting more than its brief merit of the 1961 rules, then no case of excessive delegation will be made. In any case, in the backdrop of the rule-making provision of section 169 of the 1951 mandatory consultation with the Election Commission, the 1961 rules, particularly amendments brought about in 2019 and 2020, do not amount to excessive delegation. ”

Empowering the verdict, the Chief Justice wrote: “It has to be accepted that whatever the Election Commission has done here is inclusive and allows some individuals who are not empowered to exercise their franchise Placed so that the postal ballot can be used and participate in the celebration of the festival of democracy… one can add, with humility, that if the conduct of the election made the process inclusive without compromising the confidentiality or impartiality of the ballot Goes, it would be a great reason to celebrate. And praise the conducting body. “

Adding a word of caution, he also said, “It is not meant to suggest that the challenge here was entirely without foundation as the experience of the process initiated by the Election Commission would show that such a process is geography. How can I become more sophisticated and attested? ” Climate of place

The DMK had filed a case stating that the postal ballot system could create external influence and lose the voter freedom and privacy that voters enjoy during voting in enclosed enclosures in polling stations through EVMs.