{"id":199719,"date":"2005-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-23T02:08:05","modified_gmt":"2017-08-22T20:38:05","slug":"all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED:21\/12\/2005   \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN            \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM           \n\nW.P.NO.18782 OF 2005    \nAND  \nW.P.M.P.NO.32943 OF 2005    \n\nAll India Anna Dravida\nMunnetra Kazhagam   \nrepresented by Party Election\nWing Secretary, 226\/275, \nAvvai Shanmugam Salai  \nRoyapettah, Chennai  600 014            ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Chief Election Commissioner \n   Election Commission of India\n   Nirvachan Sadan\n   New Delhi  110 001\n\n2.The Chief Electoral Officer\n   Public (Elections) Department\n   Chennai  600 009                     ..Respondents\n\n\n        Prayer:  Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents herein or their\nsubordinates  or their agents or their men or anyone acting or claiming to act\non their behalf from taking any legal action against the functionaries of  the\npetitioner  party in having forwarded the claims made by individual applicants\nin Form-6 of the Registration  of  Electors  Rules,  1960,  either  under  the\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1950 or any other Statutory provision.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.N.Jothi, for\n                :  assisted by Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram\n                :  Mr.A.Kandasamy\n\nFor Respondent 1 :  Mr.G.Rajagopalan, SC for \n                :  M\/s.G.R.Associates\n\nFor Petitioner in:  Mr.R.Viduthalai, SC for\nWPMP.No.32943\/05 :  M\/s.A.V.Bharathi   \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
(Order of the court was delivered by
\nJustice R.Balasubramanian) <\/p>\n
        The petitioner  is  a  political  party.  The relief prayed for in the
\nwrit petition is that, against none of the  functionaries  of  the  petitioner
\npolitical  party,  legal  action  be  taken  on  the  role  of  each  of  such
\nfunctionaries in having forwarded the claims made by individual applicants  in
\nForm-6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as
\n“the Rules”.    In  other  words,  if it is found that there is any falsity in
\nForm-6 of individual applicants submitted in bulk by any of the  functionaries
\nof  the  petitioner  political party as authorised by the Election Commission,
\nsuch functionaries shall not be proceeded against  legally.Mr.N.Jothi  learned
\ncounsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  took  us  through  section 31 of the
\nRepresentation of the People Act,  1950,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  “RPA,
\n1950”,  and contended that a careful reading of that section would exclude all
\nothers, except the person making a statement\/declaration which is false,  from
\nbeing proceeded  with  under  that  section.   According to him, the beginning
\nsentence of that section namely, “if any person  makes  in  connection  with”,
\nmakes   it   abundantly   clear   that   only   the   person,   who   makes  a
\nstatement\/declaration in writing, which is false,  etc……….    ,  can  be
\nprosecuted for  any  such  falsity.    Under Rule 26 of the “the Rules”, every
\napplication under section 23 of “RPA, 1950” shall  be  made  in  duplicate  in
\nForm-6,  etc., Rule 13(1(a) of “the Rules”, declares that every claim shall be
\nmade for inclusion of names in electoral roll in Form-6.   In  the  prescribed
\nformat,  only  the  voter,  who wants his name to be included in the electoral
\nroll, has to give the  necessary  details  asked  for  in  that  fo  rmat  and
\ntherefore  it  is he, who makes that statement as asked for and also gives the
\ndeclaration.  Therefore reading section 31 of “RPA, 1950″, Rule 13(1)(a) of  ”
\nthe  Rules”  and  the  prescribed format namely, Form-6, it is not possible to
\nbring in any other person, other than the person who seeks  to  get  his  name
\nincluded, within  the ambit of section 31 of “RPA, 1950”.  For the first time,
\nthe Election Commission of  India  had  issued  detailed  guidelines  by  it’s
\nproceedings dated  19.06.2004  to  be  followed  for  the revision.  Under the
\nguidelines, presenting applications in Form-6 in bulk  is  permitted  and  the
\nperson so presenting the applications in Form-6 in bulk is called upon to sign
\na letter   in   the  prescribed  format  namely,  IR-2005-2007.    Though  the
\nfunctionaries of the petitioner political party had signed in such forms, yet,
\nsigning the form itself would not  bring  any  of  the  functionaries  of  the
\npetitioner party within the ambit of section 31 of “RPA, 1950”.  Under Article
\n20  of the Constitution of India, no person shall be convicted of any offence,
\nexcept for violation of a “Law” in force.  The guidelines referred to above is
\nnot “Law” legally made namely, either by the Parliament or by the Legislature.
\nIn any event, the guidelines will not have the  force  of  “Law”.    When  the
\nguidelines  is neither “Law” nor has the force of “Law”, by reading section 31
\nof “RPA, 1950”, none of the functionaries of the  petitioner  party  shall  be
\nlegally proceeded  with,  for any violation of the said section.  In expanding
\nhis arguments that “Law” enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution of  India
\nis  ”  Law”  duly  made  by  the  Parliament or the State Legislature, learned
\ncounsel relied upon a number of judgments of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of
\nIndia.   He  also  contended that, assuming that the Election Commission is an
\nautonomous body by itself; it can frame it’s own guidelines in the revision of
\nelectoral rolls and make it’s own legal provisions in regard thereto, yet,  it
\ncannot do  on  a  subject if it is already an occupied field.  In other words,
\nfalsity of a claim made in Form-6 is already made an offence under section  31
\nof “RPA,  1950”  and therefore it is an occupied field.  If it is so, then the
\nElection Commission of India cannot bring in any other class of  persons,  not
\nalready  covered under section 31 of “RPA, 1950”, within the ambit of the said
\nsection.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Mr.G.Rajagopalan learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  first
\nrespondent would submit that it is true that submitting applications in Form-6
\nin  bulk  came  to  be  introduced  for  the  first time under the guidelines.
\nAccording to him, section 31 of “RPA, 1950″ is wide enough to proceed not only
\nagainst  the  individual,  who  files  the  claim  in  the  prescribed  format
\ncontaining  a  false  statement\/declaration, but also the person, who presents
\nthat application duly signed by the applicant  himself,  if  it  is  found  to
\ncontain any  false  statement\/ declaration.  Neither the guidelines commencing
\nfrom paragraph 8.7.4 till 8.7.5.1 nor the prescribed format of letter in  Form
\nIR-2005-2007,  create  an  offence  for the first time and the persons who are
\npresenting such bulk applications are already covered under section  31  of  ”
\nRPA, 1950″.    The  very object of introducing section 31 of “RPA, 1950” is to
\nsee that no illegality is committed in the  preparation  of  electoral  rolls,
\nwhich in  turn would see that a fair election is conducted.  If the submission
\nof the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then  it  would  defeat
\nthe  very  object  itself  namely, the mischief sought to be remedied would be
\nallowed to continue.  If the object of introducing section 31 of  “RPA,  1950”
\nis  had  in  mind,  then  the  submission  made by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner cannot be accepted at all since, if it is so done, it would destroy
\nthe concept of a fair preparation of electoral rolls  and  a  free  democratic
\nelection to  be  held.    Learned  senior  counsel  would then submit that the
\nelection commission  is  the  supreme  body  by  itself  and  subject  to  the
\nConstitutional  restrictions, it can, from time to time, issue guidelines with
\nreference to all matters relating to the conduct of elections and such a power
\nis traceable to Part 15 of the Constitution  of  India.    Learned  Government
\nPleader  appearing  for  the  second  respondent  adopted the arguments of the
\nlearned senior counsel appearing for the Election Commission  of  India.    In
\nW.P.M.P.No.32943\/2005,  another political party wanted to get itself impleaded
\non the ground that public interest is  involved  in  the  writ  petition;  any
\ndecision  rendered by this court on the point raised would have a far reaching
\nimpact in the preparation of electoral rolls  and  if  the  writ  petition  is
\nallowed  on  a  narrow  reading  of  section  31  of “RPA 1950”, it will allow
\npersons, who are guilty of violating the process of preparation  of  electoral
\nrolls, to escape.  The petitioner in this petition is represented by a learned
\nsenior counsel  namely,  Mr.R.Viduthalai.  We told in open court that, without
\ngoing into the merits or otherwise of the rights  of  the  petitioner  to  get
\nitself  impleaded,  we  would  like  to have the assistance of Mr.R.Viduthalai
\nlearned senior counsel in deciding this case.  Mr.R.Viduthalai learned  senior
\ncounsel agreed.      Accordingly,   dismissing  this  W.P.M.P  and  requesting
\nMr.R.Viduthalai learned senior counsel to  assist  this  court  on  the  legal
\nissue, we heard  him.   Mr.R.  Viduthalai learned senior counsel, who assisted
\nthe court, submitted that it  is  not  as  though  the  petitioner  alone  has
\npresented  bulk  applications  in  Form-6  and  such  a  procedure  to receive
\napplications in Form-6 in bulk stands  permitted  throughout  the  length  and
\nbreadth of  this country.  Such authority to present applications in Form-6 in
\nbulk is not only given to a political party but also to  the  residents  of  a
\nwelfare association  or gaon sabha.  Therefore if any person who presents bulk
\napplications in Form-6 and if in any or all those applications in Form-6 there
\nis any falsity in the statement\/delcaration,  then  the  persons  who  are  so
\npresenting would  also  be  liable.   Learned senior counsel would also submit
\nthat whenever a Statute is read, it must be read in it’s true spirit  and  the
\ninterpretation  of  Statute  should  not  defeat the object and purpose of the
\nprovision itself.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  We have carefully gone  through  the  arguments  advanced  by  the
\nlearned counsel  on  all  sides.    Before  we proceed to appreciate the rival
\ncontentions, we are of the considered opinion that it is better to  trace  the
\norigin of  section  31 of “RPA, 1950”.  The Act came into force on 12.05.1950.
\nAs the Act originally stood, sections 31 and 32 were not there.   Sections  31
\nand 32  were introduced in “RPA, 1950” by Amending Act 58\/1958.  After section
\n30 of the principal Act, sections 31  and  32  were  introduced  and  for  our
\npurpose,  we  extract hereunder section 31 of “RPA, 1950” as it was originally
\nintroduced.\n<\/p>\n
        “31.  Making of false declarations:  If any  person  makes  in  or  in
\nconnection with –\n<\/p>\n
        (a)  a  claim or an application for the inclusion in an electoral roll
\nof his name, or\n<\/p>\n
        (b) an objection to the inclusion therein, or an application  for  the
\nexclusion or deletion therefrom, of the name of any other person,
\na statement or declaration in writing which is false and which he either knows
\nor believes to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable
\nwith  imprisonment  for  a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or
\nwith both.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 31 introduced by Amending Act 58\/1958 was substituted under section  4
\nof Amending  Act  20\/1960 with effect from 08.05.1960.  Substituted section 31
\nreads as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        “31.  Making false declarations:  – If any person makes in  connection
\nwith –\n<\/p>\n
        (a) the preparation, revision or correction of a electoral roll, or\n<\/p>\n
        (b)  the  inclusion, or exclusion of any entry in or from an electoral
\nroll, a statement or declaration in writing which is false and which he either
\nknows or believes to be false or does not believe to  be  true,  he  shall  be
\npunishable  with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
\nfine, or with both.”\n<\/p>\n
The objects and reasons of Amending Act 20\/1960 are as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        “Substitution of section 31  “Because of its limited  scope,  section
\n31 does  not  fully  serve the purpose for which it was enacted.  Under clause\n<\/p>\n
(a) of this section a person commits an offence  only  if  he  makes  a  false
\nstatement  or  declaration  in  writing  in  or  in connection with a claim or
\napplication to include his own name in the electoral roll but not when he does
\nso in respect of some other person.  Furthermore, the section  appears  to  be
\napplicable  only  to  statements  made  in  claims  and objections made before
\nrevising authorities or in applications made under section 23 of the  Act  for
\ninclusion of names but not to statements made before any other persons, as for
\nexample,  enumerators  of  the  stage  of  the  initial  preparation or annual
\nrevision of the rolls.  Experience has shown that false statements are made at
\nthis stage also in quite a number of cases.  It  is  accordingly  proposed  to
\nwiden the scope  of  section  31  ……   “S.O.R.,Gaz.  Of Ind.,1960, Extra.,
\nPt.II, section 2, p.320.”\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Now the point to be considered is, if in the bulk presentation  of
\nclaims  in  Form-6  presented  by  any  of the functionaries of the petitioner
\nparty, there is falsity in the statement\/declaration etc., whether such act by
\nany of the functionary of the petitioner party could  be  brought  within  the
\nteeth of  section  31  of  “RPA,  1950”?    The answer to that question has to
\nnecessarily depend upon the interpretation of section 31 and understanding the
\nobject and purpose behind the introduction of section 31 of “RPA, 1950” as  it
\nstands today.    Recently,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
\nreported in 2005-4-L.W.Pg.328 (Swamy Atmananda & others Vs.   Sri  Ramakrishna
\nTapovanam  &  others) laid down the principle of Statuto ry interpretation and
\nwe extract hereunder the principle of interpretation enunciated therein:\n<\/p>\n
        “A Statute, as is well-known, must be read in such a manner so  as  to
\ngive effect to the provisions thereof.  It must be read reasonably.  A Statute
\nmust be construed in such a manner so as to make it workable.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is  a well-known principle of Statutory interpretation that interpretation
\nshould not be in such a manner which would defeat the object  and  purpose  of
\nthe Act.  When a mischief is sought to be remedied by any Statutory provision,
\nthe court  is  bound  to interpret the Statute having that object in mind.  In
\nthe light of the settled position in law that objects and reasons always guide
\nthe court to a safer and purposeful interpretation of a  Statute,  we  applied
\nour  mind  to the objects and reasons behind the introduction of section 31 of
\n“RPA, 1950 ” as it stands today by section 4 of Amending  Act  20\/1960.    The
\nobjects and  reasons  are  very clear.  It unerringly shows that section 31 of
\n“RPA, 1950”, as introduced by Act 58\/1958, was  not  wide  enough  to  include
\npersons other  than  the  person who presents the claim form itself.  In fact,
\nthe object very clearly enumerates that section 31, as it  was  introduced  by
\nAmending Act 58\/1958, would cover only persons who make the claim but not when
\nhe does so in respect of some other person.  The object also is clear that any
\nfalsity  in  a statement\/ declaration made otherwise than in Form-6 before any
\nother authority, including enumerators,  shall  also  be  brought  within  the
\npurview of  section 31 of “RPA, 1950”.  Therefore it is clear to our mind that
\nsection 31 of “RPA, 1950” as it stands today, shall not have a narrow  meaning
\nbut it shall have a wider ambit of covering all persons, who may be the person
\nwho  files  Form-6 or opposes it but also persons who make such a statement or
\ngive a declaration for  another  person.    The  format  in  IR-2005-2007  for
\nsubmitting  applications  in bulk for inclusion of names in electoral rolls is
\nas hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
Letterhead of recognised Political Party or Residents Welfare  Association  or
\nGaon Sabha  <\/p>\n
————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Electoral Registration Officer,\n<\/p>\n
———————- Assembly Constituency\n<\/p>\n
———————- (Name of the State)<\/p>\n
Subject:  Revision of electoral rolls w.r.t.01-01-2005 as the qualifying date.\n<\/p>\n
Sir,<\/p>\n
        I   am   forwarding  herewith  ——–  (total  No.)  original  claim
\napplications in Form 6, submitted by the citizens of India ordinarily residing
\nat the address mentioned in each application and who according to the best  of
\nmy knowledge and belief are not disqualified for registration in the electoral
\nrolls for inclusion in the relevant part of the electoral roll.\n<\/p>\n
        I  am  also enclosing a complete list (as per the prescribed proforma)
\nof the ———— (total No.) claim applications  being  forwarded  herewith
\nand the same is duly authenticated by me on each page.\n<\/p>\n
        I  further submit that I am aware of the provisions of Section 140A of
\nthe J&K R.P.Act, 1957 and Section 31 of the R.P.Act,  1950,  under  which  the
\nmaking  of  a  statement  or  declaration  which is false and which the person
\nmaking that statement\/declaration either knows or believes to be false or does
\nnot believe to be true is a penal offence, and that  I  shall  be  liable  for
\npenal action for any false statement\/ declaration in the Forms being forwarded
\nherewith.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n
Dated:\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (Name in full)
\n                                                        President\/Secretary
\n                                        Name   of   the  recognised  Political
\nParty\/
\n                                        Residents Welfare Association or
\n                                Executive Officer by whatever name called
\n                                        of the Gaon Sabha Village Council etc.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under paragraph 8.7.5.1.i of the guidelines, unless the bulk  presentation  is
\nforwarded  with  a  letter  in  the prescribed form, it shall not be received.
\nSigning a letter in the above format is only a procedural formality prescribed
\nto be followed by a person presenting bulk claims in Form-6.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  In (2003) 6 SCC Pg.107 (Lalita Jalan & Another  Vs.    Bombay  Gas
\nCompany  Limited & Others, interpretation of particular Statutes or provisions
\npenal in nature came up for consideration.  In that case,  the  Supreme  Court
\nwas dealing  with  the  ingredients  of section 630 of the Companies Act.  The
\nquestion that came up for consideration was whether the section  applies  only
\nto any officer or employee of a company or does it apply to the two categories
\nof persons mentioned above, even after they cease to be an officer or employee
\nof a  company?  The question namely, if the officer\/employee of a company dies
\nduring the course of his employment, whether the arm of  section  630  of  the
\nCompanies  Act  can  be extended to the legal representatives of such deceased
\nemployee was also under consideration in that  case.    In  interpreting  that
\nsection,  the  Supreme Court went behind the purpose for which section 630 was
\nenacted.  In so doing, the Supreme Court went on to say that “the principle of
\ninterpretation relating to criminal Statutes that the same should be  strictly
\nconstrued  will not be applicable and the principle that a Statute enacting an
\noffence or imposing a penalty is to be strictly construed is not of  universal
\napplication which  must  necessarily be observed in every case”.  In that case
\nthe Supreme Court referred to an earlier judgment of that court  in  the  case
\nreported in  AIR  1976  SC  Pg.1929  (Muralidhar  Meghraj  Loya  Vs.  State of
\nMaharashtra) where it was held “any narrow and pedantic, literal  and  lexical
\nconstruction  of  food  laws is likely to leave loop-holes for the offender to
\nsneak out of the  mashes  of  law  and  should  be  discouraged  and  criminal
\njurisprudence   must  depart  from  old  canons  defeating  criminal  Statutes
\ncalculated to protect the public health and nations wealth.  The Supreme Court
\nalso noted that the view taken in Muralidhar’s case was the view taken in  AIR
\n1977 SC Pg.435 (Kisan Trimbak Kothula Vs.  State of Maharashtra).  In AIR 1980
\nSC Pg.593  (State  of Maharashtra Vs.  Natwarlal Damodardas Soni), the Supreme
\nCourt dealing with section 135 of the Customs Act and Rule 126-H(2)(d) of  the
\nDefence  of India Rules negatived narrow construction of a Statutory provision
\nwhich would emasculate the provisions and render them ineffective as a  weapon
\nfor combatting  gold  smuggling.    It  was  also  held  in that judgment that
\nprovisions have to be specially construed in a manner which will suppress  the
\nmischief and  advance the object which the Legislature had in view.  Therefore
\nit is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Jalan’s case  and
\nthe  other  judgments referred to in that judgment that a Statute must be read
\nin such a manner to suppress the mischief and advance  the  object  which  the
\nLegislature  had  in  view and principle that a Statute enacting an offence or
\nimposing a penalty is to be strictly construed is not of universal application
\nwhich must necessarily be observed in every case.    Ultimately,  the  Supreme
\nCourt  in  Lalita Jalan’s case concluded that section 630 of the Companies Act
\nis wider in it’s amplitude and not only cover the officer  or  employee  of  a
\ncompany  in office but also those who cease to be in office and also the legal
\nrepresentatives of an officer or an employee dying while in service.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In the context of the law laid down by the Supreme  Court  in  the
\njudgments  referred  to above, if we analyse the origin of section 31 of “RPA,
\n1950” as originally introduced by Amending Act 58\/1958 and the substitution of
\nsection 31 by Amending Act 20\/1960  with  it’s  objects  and  reasons,  it  is
\ncrystal clear to our mind that the mischief, which was available in section 31
\nas it was originally introduced in 19 58, was sought to be remedied and it was
\naccordingly remedied  by  Amending  Act  20\/1960.  The expression “any person”
\nused in section 31 of “RPA, 1950” would include not only a person who makes  a
\nclaim but  also  persons  other  than  the  said  person.    Section 31, as it
\noriginally stood, had brought within itself only two types of persons  namely,
\na  person  making  in  or  in  connection  with  a claim or an application for
\ninclusion in the electoral roll of his name and  a  person  objecting  to  the
\ninclusion therein.   Section 31 of “RPA, 1950”, as it stands, is very wider in
\nit’s ambit and the significant inclusion is clause (a)  as  it  stands  today,
\nwhich was not available in section 31 as it stood originally.  Clauses (a) and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  of  section 31 as it originally stood prior to Amending Act 20\/1960 stand
\nre-drafted as section 31(b) in the present section.  Therefore clause  (a)  of
\nsection 31  of  “RPA,  195  0”  as it stands today is a new provision.  By the
\nnature of the two provisions of section 31 of “RPA, 1950” as it stands  today,
\nit  is clear to our mind that each is mutually exclusive of the other and both
\noperate in different spheres.  A definite meaning must be given to clause  (a)
\nand clause  (b)  of  section  31  of  “RPA,  1950” as it stands today.  In our
\nopinion, the person covered under clause (b) of section 3  1  of  “RPA,  1950”
\nwould not be prima facie covered under clause (a) of section 31 of “Rpa, 1950”
\nas it  stands today.  That is why, we have stated that each provision excludes
\nthe other.  Any request for inclusion of any entry in the  electoral  roll  or
\nexclusion  of  all entries from a electoral roll would necessarily involve the
\npreparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll.  If  the  Act  under
\nclause (a) and (b) of section 31 is one and the same and the person to be held
\nresponsible  for any violation is also one and the same, then there is no need
\nfor introducing clause (a) of section  31,  which  clause  is  disjunctive  in
\nnature.   Therefore  we  have no hesitation at all to hold that clause (a) and
\nclause (b) of section 31 of “RPA, 1950” would operate  in  different  spheres.
\nOur  interpretation  of section 31 is well supported by the case laws referred
\nto by us earlier and therefore the arguments advanced by the  learned  counsel
\nfor  the  petitioner  that any person in section 31 of “RPA, 1950” can only be
\nthe person, who makes the declaration in Form-6 and not any other  person  who
\npresents  bulk  applications  supported  by  the  letter  in  IR-2005-2007, if
\naccepted, would lead to absurdity and defeat the very  object  of  introducing
\nsection 31  by  Amending  Act  20\/1960.    A faint argument is advanced by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that there is a safeguard available  to  an
\nofficial  under  section  32(3)  of  “RPA,  1950” if he is shown to commit any
\nviolation in the preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll  and
\nsuch  violation  as  referred  to  in  section  32(1) of “RPA, 1950” is also a
\nviolation in section 31(a) of “RPA, 1950″.  If that is so, there cannot be two
\nyardsticks, one for the person violating section 31(a) and the other  for  the
\nperson violating section 32.  There is a fallacy in this argument.  Section 32
\nof  ”  RPA,  1950″  embraces  within  itself  an  official  on duty committing
\nviolation as referred to above.  Section 31 does not deal with  any  violation
\nshown  to  have  been committed by any official on duty and it relates only to
\npersons other than the officials.  This distinction has been lost sight of  by
\nthe  learned  counsel for the petitioner in advancing the argument referred to
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  For all the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion  that
\nby  the  guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, no new offence
\nis created nor any new set of person is brought within the purview of  section
\n31 of  “RPA,  1950”.    Right from it’s substitution, by Amending Act 20\/1960,
\nsection 31 had brought within it’s fold not only persons making  a  claim  for
\ninclusion  or exclusion containing falsity but also persons who are presenting
\nsuch claim on behalf of another  person.    At  the  risk  of  repetition,  we
\nreiterate  that  the  act  of  a  person  who  is  authorised  to present bulk
\napplications for inclusion or exclusion stands already covered  under  section
\n31  of “RPA, 1950” as it stands today and the guidelines do not create any new
\noffence or bring in any new class of offenders within the purview of section 3\n<\/p>\n
1.  In the light of our conclusion based on the interpretation of  section  31
\nof  “RPA,  1950”, we are of the considered opinion that no occasion has arisen
\nfor us to go into the various case laws cited before this court that unless it
\nis shown that a provision duly  made  by  the  Parliament  or  Legislature  is
\nviolated, no  person  can  be  punished.  For all the reasons stated above, we
\nfind no merits in the writ petition and accordingly it is  dismissed  with  no
\norder as to costs.  W.P.M.P.No.20346\/2005 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Chief Election Commissioner
\nElection Commission of India
\nNirvachan Sadan
\nNew Delhi 110 001 <\/p>\n
2.The Chief Electoral Officer
\nPublic (Elections) Department
\nChennai 600 009 <\/p>\n
        Leave to appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  is  asked  for.    Unless  a
\nsubstantial  question  law  of  public  importance  is  involved,  there is no
\nquestion of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.  In this decided case, we do
\nnot find any substantial question of law of public importance and our decision
\nis based on a reading of section 31 of “RPA, 1950”.  Leave refused.\n<\/p>\n
Vsl                     (RBJ)   (MTJ)\n                        21.12.2005\n\nNote:  Issue order copy today itself.\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21\/12\/2005 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM W.P.NO.18782 OF 2005 AND W.P.M.P.NO.32943 OF 2005 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam represented by Party Election Wing Secretary, 226\/275, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAll India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-22T20:38:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T20:38:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4111,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\",\"name\":\"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T20:38:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-22T20:38:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T20:38:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005"},"wordCount":4111,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005","name":"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T20:38:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-anna-dravida-vs-the-chief-election-commissioner-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All India Anna Dravida vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 21 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}