Supreme Court clarifies Disqualification for Not Filing Election Expenses: Laxmibai vs. The Collector, Nanded (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 122

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta, and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Can a delay in submitting election expenses automatically lead to a five-year disqualification? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question, focusing on whether the punishment should always be the maximum period, regardless of the circumstances. The Court considered appeals against orders disqualifying candidates for not submitting their election expenses on time. The bench, comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta, and Dinesh Maheshwari, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves multiple appeals concerning disqualification of candidates for failing to submit election expenses within the stipulated time. In one instance, Laxmibai, who was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat, Mugat, was required to submit her election expenses within 30 days after the election held on 1st November 2015. The results were declared on 4th November 2015. She submitted the expenses with a delay of 15 days.

The Collector, acting as a delegate of the State Election Commission, disqualified her for five years on 9th August 2018. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dismissed her appeal on 19th November 2018. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay also dismissed her writ petition. The High Court did not accept the medical certificate submitted by her as a valid reason for the delay.

Similarly, Gulabrao Ananda Patil contested the Panchayat Samiti elections on 1st December 2013 and was not elected. He was also required to submit his election expenses within 30 days. He failed to do so, and was disqualified by the Collector on 3rd November 2014 for five years. His appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 18th December 2017. Despite this, he contested and won the Gram Panchayat elections for the post of Sarpanch. This led to further litigation.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 states:

“14B. Disqualification by State Election Commission. – (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person, – (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and (b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be disqualified for being a member of panchayat or for contesting an election for being a member for a period of five years from the date of this order. (2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or reduce the period of any such disqualification.”

Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, contains similar provisions:

“15B. Disqualification by State Election Commission: – (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person,- (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and (b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be disqualified for being a Councillor or for contesting an election for being a Councillor for a period of five years from the date of this order. (2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or reduce the period of any such disqualification.”

Additionally, Section 13 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, specifies the qualifications and disqualifications for contesting elections. It states that a person is qualified to be elected unless disqualified under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.

Arguments

Appellant (Laxmibai) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the delay of 15 days in submitting election expenses was due to ill-health (hypertension and diabetes), for which she was advised bed rest.
• She contended that the disqualification for five years was disproportionate to the default, especially since the accounts were submitted, albeit with a delay.
• The appellant argued that the order of disqualification was passed nearly 3 years after the elections, which severely prejudiced her as the period of disqualification starts from the date of the order.
• It was submitted that Section 14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, allows for reducing the period of disqualification, which was not considered.
• The appellant submitted that there was no finding that the accounts furnished were not proper or not in accordance with applicable rules or instructions.

Respondent (Collector) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the appellant failed to submit election expenses within the prescribed time, which is a violation of Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
• The respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. A.K. Pandey to contend that the word ‘may’ in Section 14B should be read as ‘shall’, making disqualification mandatory.
• The respondent argued that the medical certificate submitted by the appellant was not valid as it lacked essential details and was issued by a private hospital.

Appellant (Gulabrao Ananda Patil) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the order of disqualification was passed without considering his explanation regarding ill-health.
• He contended that the disqualification under Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, was for contesting elections for being a Councillor, and did not apply to contesting Gram Panchayat elections.
• He submitted that the Returning Officer’s order accepting his nomination could only be challenged through an election petition under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and not through a writ petition.

Respondent (Collector) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the appellant did not submit his election expenses within the stipulated period, and therefore the order of disqualification was correct.
• The respondent relied on the High Court’s judgment in Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra and Others, which held that disqualification under one Act entails disqualification under the other.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the delay of 15 days in submitting election expenses necessarily warrants a disqualification for a period of five years.
2. Whether the disqualification under Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, applies to contesting Gram Panchayat elections under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
3. Whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition challenging the acceptance of nomination when an alternate remedy of election petition was available.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the disqualification for a period of five years is not mandatory for not submitting election expenses on time. The Court emphasized that the Election Commission has the power to reduce the period of disqualification, and therefore, the provision is directory, not mandatory. The Court also held that the disqualification must be proportionate to the default.

The Court also held that a disqualification under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, applies to elections under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Court further held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition challenging the acceptance of nomination when an alternate remedy of election petition was available.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Union of India & Ors. v. A.K. Pandey [(2009) 10 SCC 552]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the provision for disqualification is directory, not mandatory.

✓ D. Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCC 455]: The Court referenced this case to underscore the importance of respecting the democratic process and the need for substantial evidence to overturn election results.

✓ State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172]: The Court used this authority to highlight the serious implications of removing an elected official, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to statutory procedures.

✓ Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2001) 6 SCC 260]: This case was cited to support the view that holding an office is a valuable statutory right, and removal requires strict adherence to procedures.

✓ Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. [(2012) 4 SCC 407]: The Court relied on this authority to emphasize that elected officials cannot be removed without following the prescribed legal procedures.

✓ Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. K. Hanumantha Rao [(2017) 2 SCC 528]: This case was used to support the principle that penalties must be proportionate and not shock the judicial conscience.

✓ Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 236]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it deals with excise duty and is not applicable to election matters.

✓ Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2018 (4) Mh LJ 911]: The Court agreed with the High Court’s view that disqualification under one Act entails disqualification under the other.

✓ N. P. Punnuswami v. The Returning Officer [AIR 1952 SC 64]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that election disputes should be resolved through an election petition, not a writ petition.

✓ Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [(1978) 1 SCC 405]: The Court examined this case to reiterate that Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election, except in special situations.

✓ S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 572]: The Court cited this case to approve the Full Court Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Malam Singh v. The Collector, Sehore, which held that there is no constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of election to local bodies.

✓ Malam Singh v. The Collector, Sehore [AIR 1971 MP 195]: The Court approved this judgment, which held that the remedy for improper rejection of nomination is through an election petition, and not through a writ petition.

✓ Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh & Ors. [(2005) 8 SCC 383]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that election disputes must be determined only by way of an election petition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of proportionality, the importance of democratic representation, and the need for a fair application of the law. The Court emphasized that the disqualification of an elected representative should not be a mechanical exercise but should consider the nature and extent of the default.

The Court was also concerned about the delay in passing the disqualification orders, which further prejudiced the candidates. The Court noted that the disqualification period starts from the date of the order, and therefore, any delay in passing the order effectively extends the period of disqualification.

The Court also considered the fact that the candidates had submitted their election expenses, albeit with a delay. The Court emphasized that the purpose of submitting election expenses is to maintain the purity and transparency of the election process, but this purpose is not served by imposing a disproportionate penalty for a minor delay.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal interpretations and principles, which is reflected in the higher percentage for law. However, the factual aspects of the case, such as the delay in submitting expenses and the reasons for the delay, were also considered, which is reflected in the percentage for fact.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether delay warrants a five-year disqualification

Issue 2: Whether disqualification under 1961 Act applies to 1959 Act

Issue 3: Whether High Court should have entertained the writ petition

Key Takeaways

• Disqualification for not submitting election expenses on time is not automatically for five years.
• The Election Commission has the power to reduce the period of disqualification, making the provision directory, not mandatory.
• Disqualification must be proportionate to the default.
• Disqualification under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, applies to elections under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
• Election disputes should be resolved through an election petition, and the High Court should exercise restraint under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of democratic representation and the need for a fair application of the law.
• The judgment highlights the need for Election Commissions to act fairly and judiciously while disqualifying candidates for not submitting election expenses.
• The judgment clarifies that a minor delay in submitting election expenses should not automatically lead to the maximum disqualification period.
• The judgment underscores the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures while disqualifying an elected representative.