Reshma Anil Bhosale Vs Maharashtra State Election Commission & Others

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 3350 of 2017, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2017

The remedy under Article 136 is a discretionary remedy though  it  does  not
mean that the discretion should be exercised whimsically.

The elections in question pertain to a local body under a local law  of  the
State Legislature.  The result of the election is most unlikely to have  any
effect on the affairs of this nation.  We are even inclined to believe  that
the result of the election would not  have  any  repercussions  beyond  Pune
City.

The High Court is also a constitutional court,  subject  of  course  to  the
appellate jurisdiction conferred on this court by law.

The  petitioners  would  still  have  a  forum  for  adjudication  of  their
respective rights and granting appropriate relief if they  can  successfully
establish the infringement of their legal rights.

The appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution under  Article  136
is purely discretionary.

The pendency of huge number of  matters  in  this  Court  coupled  with  the
relative insignificance (from the point  of  view  of  the  nation)  of  the
injury to the petitioners herein are certainly factors  which  should  weigh
with this Court before entertaining these applications.

                                                        REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.     CC No. 3350 OF 2017


Reena Suresh Alhat                                  … Petitioner
            Versus
State of Maharashtra & Another                  … Respondents
                                     AND

               SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5014 OF 2017


Reshma Anil Bhosale                             … Petitioner
                 Versus
Maharashtra State Election
Commission & Others                            … Respondents

                                    ORDER


Chelameswar, J.

Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.

These two matters arise out of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation  Act,  1949
(Act No. 59 of 1949).  Petitioners in these two SLPs are candidates  at  the
ongoing Elections to the Municipal Corporation of Pune.

Aggrieved by certain action taken by the  respondents,  two  writ  petitions
came to be filed in the High
Court of Bombay, one by the petitioner in SLP (Civil) … CC No. 3350 of  2017
and the other by respondent no.4 in SLP (Civil) No.5014 of 2017.

Reena Suresh Alhat’s nomination was rejected by  an  order  dated  4.2.2017.
She challenged the rejection of her nomination  by  a  writ  petition.   The
writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by an  order  under  challenge
dated 7.2.2017  on  the  twin  grounds  of  a  constitutional  bar  and  the
existence of an alternative remedy.

In the case of Reshma Anil Bhosale, the dispute is regarding  the  allotment
of a symbol.  The petitioner claimed to be  a  candidate  sponsored  by  the
Bharatiya Janata Party.   The said symbol was allotted to the petitioner  by
an  order  of  the  respondent  dated  8.2.2017.   One  of  the   contesting
candidates questioned the allotment of the election symbol of BJP by  filing
a writ petition. Rule nisi was issued and by an interim order  of  the  High
Court, the order of the Election Commission allotting the symbol  in  favour
of Reshma Anil Bhosale was stayed.

Hence these two special leave petitions.

It was passionately urged by the learned senior counsel  appearing  in  both
the matters that this Court ought to examine the questions of  law  involved
in the petitions because these elections at the  grass  root  level  are  of
great importance in the civic  administration  of  Pune.   By  the  impugned
orders, the High Court deprived the petitioners of their valuable  electoral
rights. Though the petitioners have an alternative remedy to  challenge  the
election of returned candidates, such a remedy is time consuming and in  the
process a substantial (if not the entire) portion of the term of the  office
would expire and, therefore, this Court is bound to  examine  the  cases  on
merits.

The remedy under Article 136 is a discretionary remedy though  it  does  not
mean that the discretion should be exercised whimsically.   Learned  counsel
for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench in  the
case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The  Chief  Election  Commissioner,
New Delhi & Others, AIR 1978 SC 851, in support of the  submission  that  in
appropriate cases, this  Court  ought  to  interfere  in  certain  specified
circumstances in the election process  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the
aggrieved candidate would have an opportunity to question the election at  a
later point of time by filing an election petition.

On the other  hand,  the  caveator  (one  of  the  contesting  candidates  -
respondents in SLP(C) No.5014 of 2017 relying upon a judgment of this  Court
in Election Commission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar  &  Others,
(2008)  8  SCC  216,  argued  that  this  Court  clearly   laid   down   the
circumstances in which interference would be justified and the case on  hand
does not fall within the parameters indicated therein.

We see no reason to entertain the SLPs for the following reasons

The elections in question pertain to a local body under a local law  of  the
State Legislature.  The result of the election is most unlikely to have  any
effect on the affairs of this nation.  We are even inclined to believe  that
the result of the election would not  have  any  repercussions  beyond  Pune
City.

The High Court is also a constitutional court,  subject  of  course  to  the
appellate jurisdiction conferred on this court by law.

The  petitioners  would  still  have  a  forum  for  adjudication  of  their
respective rights and granting appropriate relief if they  can  successfully
establish the infringement of their legal rights.

The appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution under  Article  136
is purely discretionary.

The pendency of huge number of  matters  in  this  Court  coupled  with  the
relative insignificance (from the point  of  view  of  the  nation)  of  the
injury to the petitioners herein are certainly factors  which  should  weigh
with this Court before entertaining these applications.

We are only reminded of a caution given by Justice Frankfurter in Rogers  v.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S. Ct. 443,  459  “The
Court may or may not be “doing justice” in the four insignificant  cases  it
decides today; it certainly  is  doing  injustice  to  the  significant  and
important cases on the calendar and to its own role as the supreme  judicial
body of the country.” …  “Unless  the  Court  vigorously  enforces  its  own
criteria  for  granting  review  of  cases,  it  will  inevitably  face   an
accumulation of arrears or will dispose of its  essential  business  in  too
hurried and therefore too shallow a way.”




      We regret our inability to examine the issues involved  in  these  two
cases.   Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

            …......................................J.
                                       (J. CHELAMESWAR)


…......................................J.
                                       (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi
February 13, 2017