IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:07.04.2011 CORAM: The HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL THE CHIEF JUSTICE and The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.8387 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2011 Sathiavani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu & Principal Secretary to Government, Public Election Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600009. 2.District Electoral Officer cum District Collector, Madurai District. ... Respondents Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to initiate appropriate action on the second respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 29.03.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhakarn for Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan For Respondents :Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates for R1 Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla G.P. Assisted by Mrs.M.Sneha G.A. for R2 Mr.P.Rathinam for Petitioner in M.P.No.2 of 2011 M/s.Sudha Ramalingam for Petitioner in M.P.No.3 of 2011 O R D E R THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J The petitioner claiming herself to be the President of a Woman Welfare organisation and a permanent resident of Madurai has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the first respondent to initiate appropriate action on the second respondent based on her representation dated 29.03.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. According to the petitioner, she has filed the writ petition for conducting free and fair elections in Madurai city and that after the elections were notified, the second respondent, the District Election Officer participated in various meetings held for election awareness campaign conducted in colleges such as Fathima college, Meenakshi college for woman and in such meetings, the second respondent has informed the students that the change should come through elections. The petitioner further stated that this statement of the second respondent was widely published in various news papers and according to the petitioner, the action of the second respondent indirectly conveys that the change should come in the State with regard to the ruling party. It appears that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the first respondent on 29.03.2011, against the second respondent, and has approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to take immediate action on such representation. The news item published in the Tamil daily "Dinamani" dated 26.03.2011 has been filed in the typed set of papers. 3. When the matter came up for admission before this Bench on 31.03.2011, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, to file an affidavit on behalf of the second respondent. We further directed, the reporter of Dinamani News paper, who was present in Court, to inform the editor of the News paper to file an affidavit. In due compliance with the direction, affidavits have been filed by the second respondent and the Editor of the newspaper. 4. Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the statement made by the second respondent that change should come through elections will influence the mind of the general public more particularly the voters and it will be understood by the public that the party other than the ruling party has to come to power. The learned counsel further submits that the action of the second respondent is in violation of the check list provided by the Election Commission of India for the District Election officers. Further, it is submitted that the second respondent has to discharge his functions in accordance with Section 20(A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951), and his action is not in accordance with the said provisions. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the statement made by the second respondent denotes bias and the duty of the second respondent is not to influence the voters by asking them to bring change through election which tantamounts to supporting the opposition parties in the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner does not want to stall the election in any manner, but is aggrieved by the speech made by the second respondent, the contents of which reveals the mens rea and the second respondent has no jurisdiction to address any meeting after the elections have been notified. The learned counsel reiterated that the speech of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent is not part of his duty under Section 20(A) of the RP Act, 1951. 5. Mr. G.Rajagoplan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Election Commission of India has devised a comprehensive plan of action for enhanced electoral participation in the forth coming elections and the second respondent was bound to create awareness among voters of their rights and duties and the importance of voting as per conscience. Further, it is submitted that the Election Commission of India has formulated a policy for combating role of money power in elections in which detailed instructions have been given. Further, it is submitted that the Election Commission of India has emphasized the importance of people's participation in electoral process and Voters Education and Electoral Participation (VEEP) programme has been introduced to create awareness among the public, especially urban people and youth in the forth coming General Election. Therefore, it is submitted that the second respondent acted in accordance with the directives issued by the Election Commission of India for creation of awareness among the voters and the meetings attended by him and the speeches delivered are strictly in accordance with the policy of the Election Commission of India. 6. The learned Senior counsel, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by Mr.U.Sagayam, I.A.S., the second respondent, submitted that in all the programmes, the speech delivered by the second respondent revolved only on discharge of democratic duty by way of voting without fear and without being bribed and that he sought the co-operation of all segment of the societies for smooth conduct of poll in a free and fair manner. The second respondent in the counter affidavit has set out the various steps taken by him for creation of awareness among the electorate. Further, it is submitted that he discharged his duties and responsibilities well within the ambit of Section 20(A) of the RP Act, 1951, and in strict compliance with the instructions of Election Commission of India. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner denied the allegation that he advocated for change of Government and nowhere in his speech, he mentioned the change of Government is the need of the hour. Along with the counter affidavit, four CDs containing the videograph of the speeches delivered by the second respondent were submitted to this Court. 7. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.04.2011, we thought fit that we should see the videographed speeches delivered by the second respondent and since, the speeches wherein Tamil, one of us (T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) being acquainted with tamil language was asked to view the videographed speeches submitted by the first respondent and the matter stood adjourned to today(07.04.2011). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. As one of us (T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J) has viewed the CDs, had informed the learned counsels about the contents of the speeches. For better appreciation, the same are reproduced hereunder. The second respondent has addressed four meetings, three of such meetings have been addressed in three womans colleges in Madurai and the fourth meeting was addressed in a programme organised by Dinamalar News paper as a part of its awareness campaign to the electorate. In all the three colleges, it is seen from the videograph that the underlying principle for which, such meetings were convened among the student community is for ensuring 100% participation in the election and voting without accepting any gifts or bribe. The second respondent in his speech has extensively quoted various National Leaders, eminent jurists and he advocated the principle that no one should accept bribe for the purpose of casting their vote, he has stated that a vote is not for sale and if such a vote is sold, it is a timebomb for the future. At the conclusion of each of the meetings, the second respondent has administered a pledge to the gathering that they shall all participate in free and fair election and will not accept any bribe for casting their vote. In the said context, the second respondent has spoken that a change has to occur and the change, which the second respondent referred, cannot be held to be a change of political power, but in our view a change of the people's mind set. In sum and substance, the message which the second respondent has attempted to convey in all the four meetings is about having a free, fair and corruption free elections. In fact the second respondent has motivated the students to get themselves qualified and become eminent Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, Civil Servant, I.A.S., and I.P.S., officers and also excel him. Therefore, we are prima facie satisfied that the speeches delivered by the second respondent cannot be construed in the manner projected by the writ petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the speeches delivered by the petitioner are beyond the scope of his duties and responsibilities under Section 20(A) of the RP Act, 1951. Sub-Section 1 of Section 20(A) states that the District Election Officer shall co-ordinate and supervise all work in the District or in the area within his jurisdiction in connection with the conduct of all elections to Parliament and the legislature of the State. In terms of Sub-Section 2 of Section 20(A), the District Election Officer shall also perform such other functions as may be entrusted to him by the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer has evolved a comprehensive plan of action for enhanced electoral participation in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election 2011. This plan is a result of survey conducted by the Indian Council for Market Research. Based on such survey, a strategy was planned to over come the apathy of urban people towards the electoral participation and key information was to be disseminated in all types of media covering all aspects of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ election management etc. As, it was found that the communication gap between the citizens and the electoral machinery is more pronounced in the cities rather than in the villages, it was decided to reach all sections of people through effective communication by creating awareness among voters on their rights and duties as a responsible citizen, ensure enrollment of all electors, 100% voters turn out, remove voters apathy, especially among youths, stress the importance of voting as per conscience among other things. The action plan specifically provided for exclusive youth specific campaign and exclusive woman specific campaign. As a part of the implementation process, the District Election Officer was required to develop district specific plans to address specific areas of concern among voters in their district and through targeted interventions reach out to urban voters, youth and women to enhance voter participation and emphasize importance of ethical voting. 10. The Additional Chief Electoral officer by letter dated 09.03.2011, forward the Communication Policy/Plan for Combating Role of Money Power in Elections, issued by the Election Commission of India. Under the said policy, the followings were taken up for message development:- i) Distribution of money, liquor, food or any other item among the electors is a crime. Both the giver and the taker are punishable with imprisonment upto one year and imposition of fine. ii. Anybody who promises to give or anybody who agrees to take any gratification as a reward to cast his/her vote is punishable, as per Law. iii. Any free transport or entertainment provided to the electors is also punishable upto imprisonment of one year and imposition of fine. iv. Any bribe offered/given to the voter is a corrupt practice. 11. The Election Commission of India also prescribed the mode of awareness campaign to be taken up and one such mode to be adopted by the District Election Officers is to hold meetings, workshops with political parties and candidates among other things. Further, the Election Commission of India has emphasized the importance of the peoples participation in electoral process and a programme called VEEP programme was introduced to create awareness among the public and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was sanction to each District in Tamil Nadu for implementation of the District VEEP plan. As per G.O.D.No.250, Public(election) Department, dated 15.03.2011, the District Election Officers were authorised to spend the amount allotted to the district and they were directed to send their documentation report on the various activities taken up for creative awareness to the voters for Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election 2011 to the government regarding the implementation of District VEEP plan. It is seen from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the annexure to the said Government order, Madurai District has been allotted the sum of Rs.50,000/-. 12. It appears that a meeting was convened at Chennai on 14.03.2011, in which the Secretaries of various Departments of Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of India participated in connection with the VEEP programme and in the said meeting an action plan was drawn as to how the programme shall be conducted and the manner in which, the publicity shall be done. Further, the Chief Electoral Officer has directed the District Election Officer to collect the various other publicity material provided by the Election Commission for onwards distribution in their respective districts, which contains the slogan that every one shall vote as per their conscience. 13. Thus, in the light of the above detailed instructions issued by the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral officer, the awareness programmes and meetings convened by the second respondent or chaired by the second respondent would squarely fall within the scope of the duties and responsibilities of the second respondent, the District Election Officer under Section 20(A)(2) of the RP Act 1951. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent exceeded his powers in addressing such meetings cannot be countenanced. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the contentions raised by the petitioner is baseless. 14. For all the above reasons, we hold that the petitioner has not made out a case for issuance of the direction as sought for and accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The four CDs furnished by the first respondent shall form part of record. M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2011 These petitions have been filed by the petitioners therein for impleading themselves as the party respondents in the writ petition. In view of the above order, dismissing the writ petition itself, these miscellaneous petitions are dismissed as unnecessary. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pbn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu & Principal Secretary to Government, Public Election Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600009. 2.The District Electoral Officer cum District Collector, Madurai District. 1 cc To Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan, Advocate, SR.25308. 2 cc To Ms.Sudha Ramalingam, Advocate, SR.25049. 2 cc To Mr.P.Rathinam, Advocate, SR.25019 & 25020. W.P.No.8387 of 2011 JRG(CO) RVL 12.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/