IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12904 of 2008 Between: Seelam Prasada Rao, S/o. Late S.V. Raghavaiah R/o. Secunderabad. ....Petitioner And 1. The Union of India, represented by Parliament, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110011. 2. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi-110011. .....Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue an order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus:- (a) suspending the operation of the (i) The Representation of the people Act 1950; (i) The Representation of the people Act 1951; with notices to the Respondents for ﬁling Counter Aﬃdavit in opposition, on the following grounds:- (a) that the above Acts enacted by Parliament of Political Parties, denied the right to equality or the equal protection of laws of Article 14 and Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment of Article 16 the rights conferred taken away of abridged vide provisions of above Acts, in contravention of Article 13(2) of Constitution. (b) to issue orders of enforcement of rights conferred under Articles 12, 13, 14, 16 and 32, denied, taken away or abridged by parliament of political parties vide provisions of the Representation of the people Acts 1950 and 1951, in contravention of Article 13(2) and under the authority of Article 13(2) declare the above Acts of 1950 and 1951, as void; and (c) and pass such other and further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case as the petitioner and the People of India are subjected to indirect "War" causing irreparable personnel loss, hardship and damage to moveable and immoveable properties. Counsel for the petitioner : Party-in-Person Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy Assistant Solicitor General Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri C.P. Sarathy. The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1. This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner, a party-in-person, has questioned the validity of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the 1950 Act’) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the 1951 Act’). 2. It has been submitted by the petitioner that enactment of the 1951 Act shows non-application of mind on the part of the legislature for the reason that just one year before, the 1950 Act had been enacted and, therefore, there was no need to enact another Act of 1951. Moreover, he has also submitted that the rules under the 1951 Act had been enacted in 1961. According to him, the rules ought to have been framed under the 1951 Act immediately and the said delay was fatal and that would adversely aﬀect the validity of the 1951 Act. 3. Thereafter, he has submitted that both the afore-stated Acts had been enacted in such a manner that most of the ordinary people cannot understand and, therefore, they should be declared ultra vires. 4. It has been thereafter submitted that Section 2 interpreting certain phrases of the 1951 Act is not proper for the reason that the phrases do not give proper interpretation. Moreover, Section 2(f) of the 1951 Act deals with political party. According to the petitioner, while dealing with political party, the legislature has not given any right to any individual and, therefore, the Act is ultra vires. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that copies of both the afore-stated Acts with signatures of the person who had authenticated the Act or enacted the Act are not available and, therefore, it would be diﬃcult for a citizen to ﬁnd out whether the Acts which have been printed by publisher are correctly reproduced. 6. It has been further submitted that population of India is 120 crores and according to him, more than 50% are women. The petitioner has submitted that as no separate Parliament for women has been created and, therefore, both the Acts are bad in law. 7. It has been further submitted that under the 1950 Act, certain words have not been properly deﬁned and, therefore, because of vagueness, the Act is bad in law. 8. Thereafter, it has been submitted that the legislature has acted in a discriminatory manner because there are legislative councils in a very few States. This is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the afore-stated two Acts are ultra vires. 9. Thereafter, it has been submitted that Election Commissioner has been given unfettered rights and the appointment of Election Commissioner is not incorporated in Part III of the Constitution. 10. It has been thereafter submitted that in the electoral rolls, it is not speciﬁcally stated as to whether the persons whose names have been included are citizens of India. According to him, in the afore-stated two Acts, a provision ought to have been made to show whether a person whose name is included in the electoral roll is a citizen of India. 11. Lastly, it has been submitted by the petitioner that in the event of two candidates securing equal votes, the practice of lottery is eﬀected, which is not proper and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. It has been submitted by the petitioner that for the afore-stated reasons, both the Acts named hereinabove are ultra vires the Constitution of India and, therefore, they should be declared as such. 13. We have considered the afore-stated arguments. Both the Acts had been enacted with diﬀerent objects and with diﬀerent areas of operation. We do not ﬁnd any substance in the arguments advanced by the petitioner and we see no substance in the petition. 14. The petition is, therefore, rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 29th August, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. ........REGISTRAR To 1. The Union of India, represented by Parliament, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110011. 2. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi-110011. 3. One copy to Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OPUC). 4.Two C.D. copies. ARS