Supreme Court clarifies time limits for filing election disputes in cooperative societies: Reji Thomas & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)

Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 332
Judges: Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Can a High Court extend the deadline for filing an election petition under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969? The Supreme Court addressed this important question in a case concerning elections to a cooperative bank. The Court clarified that once a statute sets a time limit for filing an election petition, neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court can extend that period unless the statute itself allows it. This judgment emphasizes the strict adherence to statutory timelines in election matters.

Case Background

The case arose from a dispute regarding the election to the Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank Ltd. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Kerala challenging the election process, specifically the voter list. The petitioners argued that many eligible members were wrongly excluded from the final voters list.

Initially, the High Court issued an interim order allowing all 611 members listed in the preliminary voter list to vote, but this was provisional and subject to the outcome of the writ petitions and any disputes raised under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The election was held on November 5, 2016, and a managing committee was elected. The Supreme Court, in an earlier order, allowed the elected committee to function on a provisional basis, pending the High Court’s final decision on the writ petitions.

The High Court eventually declined to rule on the merits of the writ petitions, instead directing the petitioners to pursue an election dispute under Section 69 of the Act. The High Court also extended the deadline for filing such a dispute by 30 days, considering the interim nature of the election. This extension of time by the High Court is what the Supreme Court ultimately addressed in this judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court referred the matter to a larger bench on 27.10.2016. The Division Bench then passed an interim order on 01.11.2016. The High Court’s interim order was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, directing the High Court to decide on the merits of the writ petitions. The High Court then passed the impugned judgment, which was challenged before the Supreme Court, leading to the current judgment.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions discussed in the judgment are:

• Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the election of members to the managing committee of a cooperative society. It mandates that elections must be conducted before the term of the existing board expires. It also vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in an authority or body as provided by the State Legislature.
  
  “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law made by the Legislature of a State, the election of a board shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of the board so as to ensure that the newly elected members of the board assume office immediately on the expiry of the office of members of the outgoing board. (2) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to a co-operative society shall vest in such an authority or body, as may be provided by the Legislature of a State, by law: Provided that the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the procedure and guidelines for the conduct of such elections.”
• Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969: This section specifies that any dispute regarding an election to the Board of Management must be referred to the Cooperative Arbitration Court within one month from the date of the election.
  
  “No dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the society shall be entertained by the Cooperative Arbitration Court unless it is referred to it within one month from the date of the election.”

Arguments

The primary issue was whether the High Court could extend the statutory period for filing an election dispute under Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969.

The appellants (original writ petitioners) argued that the High Court was justified in extending the time because the election was conducted subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. They contended that since the election was provisional, the time limit should also be flexible.

The respondents (State of Kerala and others) argued that the statutory period under Section 69(3) is absolute and cannot be extended by any court, including the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They relied on the principle that election matters must be dealt with strictly according to the law, and any deviation would undermine the integrity of the election process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could have extended the statutory period within which an Election Petition under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 should have been entertained.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Smita Subhash Sawant Vs. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin & Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 169: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that in the absence of a provision in the Act for condoning delay, no court can extend the limitation period for filing an election petition.
  
  “I n the absence of any provision made in the Act for condoning the delay in filing the election petition, the Chief Judge had no power to condone the delay in filing the election petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law”
• Union of India & Anr. vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that the High Court’s power under Article 226 is designed to enforce the law, not to act contrary to it. The Court cannot direct authorities to ignore or act contrary to statutory provisions.
  
  “…….The power conferred by Articles 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creature of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27, whether before or after amendment. Maybe the High Court or a civil court is not bound by the said provisions but the authorities under the Act are. Nor can there be any question of the High Court clothing the authorities with its power under Article 226 or the power of a civil court. No such delegation or conferment can ever be conceived.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not have extended the statutory period for filing an election dispute under Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The Court emphasized that the statutory period is mandatory and cannot be relaxed by any court unless the statute itself provides for such relaxation.

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment to the extent that it had extended the time for filing the election dispute. The writ petitions were remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The interim arrangement made by the Supreme Court earlier, allowing the elected committee to continue on a provisional basis, was to remain in effect until the High Court disposed of the writ petitions.

“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”

• Smita Subhash Sawant Vs. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin & Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 169:* The Supreme Court followed this authority to reiterate that in the absence of a provision made in the Act for condoning the delay in filing the election petition, the Court had no power to condone the delay in filing the election petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law.
• Union of India & Anr. vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453:* The Supreme Court followed this authority to emphasize that the power conferred by Articles 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that election matters must be dealt with strictly according to the law. The Court emphasized that statutory timelines are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the election process and that any deviation would undermine the legislative intent. The Court also highlighted that the High Court’s power under Article 226 is to enforce the law, not to circumvent it.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of strict interpretation of election laws and the limitations on the High Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that the provisional nature of the election justified an extension of the statutory deadline, emphasizing that the law must be followed strictly.

The Supreme Court held: “Once the mechanism provided under the Statute provides for a time schedule for preferring an election petition, in the absence of a provision in the Statute for enlarging the time under any given circumstances, no court, whether the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, 136 or 142 of the Constitution can extend the period in election matters.”

The Court also noted: “In the matter of limitation in election cases, the Court has to adopt strict interpretation of the provisions.”

The Court further stated: “The power conferred by Articles 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law.”

Key Takeaways

• Statutory timelines for filing election disputes are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to.
• Neither the High Court under Article 226 nor the Supreme Court can extend the statutory period for filing an election petition unless the statute itself allows it.
• The High Court’s power under Article 226 is to enforce the law, not to circumvent it.
• Election matters must be dealt with strictly according to the law to maintain the integrity of the election process.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment to the extent that it had extended the time for filing the election dispute. The writ petitions were remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The interim arrangement made by the Supreme Court earlier, allowing the elected committee to continue on a provisional basis, was to remain in effect until the High Court disposed of the writ petitions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that statutory timelines for filing election disputes are mandatory and cannot be extended by any court unless the statute specifically provides for such an extension. This ruling reinforces the principle that election laws must be interpreted strictly to maintain the integrity of the election process. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but rather a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Reji Thomas & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. clarifies that High Courts cannot extend the statutory time limit for filing election disputes under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to statutory timelines in election matters, reinforcing the principle that election laws must be interpreted strictly. This judgment ensures that the election process is conducted fairly and efficiently, in accordance with the law.