Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 853

MOHINDER SINGH V. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

Whether Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars all legal challenges to election-related matters before the completion of the election process?
Whether the Election Commission’s (EC) order for re-poll can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226?
Whether the EC’s powers under Article 324 are subject to principles of natural justice?

Natural Justice: The court emphasized that decisions affecting elections must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative actions.
Judicial Review: The court recognised the right to judicial review over decisions made by the Election Commission, particularly when such decisions could infringe on electoral rights or democratic processes.
Discretionary Power of the Election Commission: While the EC has broad powers to ensure free and fair elections, these powers must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
Accountability of Public Authorities: The ruling highlighted that public officials, including those in electoral offices, are accountable for their actions, especially when those actions affect the democratic process.

During the 1977 elections in the Ferozepore Parliamentary constituency, Punjab, counting was disrupted due to alleged mob violence at the final stages.
Postal ballots were destroyed, and ballot boxes from one segment were reportedly lost.
The returning officer postponed the declaration of results.
The EC cancelled the entire poll and ordered a re-poll for the whole constituency.
The appellant, who claimed to be leading, challenged this decision in the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.
Article 329(b) imposes a blanket ban on judicial interference in electoral matters between the notification of elections and declaration of results.
Challenging the EC’s order for re-poll amounts to “calling in question” an election, which is barred by Article 329(b).
The Election Court has wide powers to grant all appropriate reliefs, including setting aside the re-poll and reviving the original poll if found necessary.
The EC’s powers under Article 324 are subject to the principles of natural justice, but the court refrained from laying down specific guidelines due to the case’s factual complexity.
The court emphasized the need to balance justice and fair play with the exigencies of conducting free and fair elections promptly.