Even as the Supreme Court deals with the potential constitutional crisis caused by the Election Commission's decision to defer polls in Gujarat, the ghost of a judgement two years ago may come to haunt Chief Election Commissioner James Martin Lyngdoh. That judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court severely reprimanded Mr Lyngdoh, but stopped short of ordering his prosecution since the offence was non-cognisable, Nirvachan Sadan sources revealed to The Pioneer.
The sources pointed out that Mr Lyngdoh had shown scant regard for the judgement by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in May 2000, where he was indicted for forcing Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala out of his native town in a humiliating manner under the threat of drastic action without assigning any reason.
The offensive and humiliating comments
made by Mr Lyngdoh against Baroda district collector
Bhagyesh Jha during his two-day
visit to Gujarat earlier this month clearly shows that the Punjab and Haryana
High Court judgement failed to bring any change in the Chief Election Commissioner's
attitude, sources said.
Another important issue they point out is that Mr Lyngdoh completely ignored the observations made by Justice Chalapati with regard to Article 324 in his judgement. This far-reaching judgement had clearly defined the limits of this provision of the Constitution although Mr Lyngdoh seems to believe that it gives the EC absolute powers, experts said.
In its May 2000 pronouncement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court came down heavily on the then Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh saying that his action of verbally directing the Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala to leave Bhivani Parliamentary constituency during the September 1999 general elections and preventing him from casting his vote was "not warranted under law."
The proceedings were initiated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court suo motu based on media reports that the Haryana Chief Minister was asked to leave his constituency and return to the State Capital under the threat of drastic action. Justice T H B Chalapathi held that this act of Mr Lyngdoh would certainly amount to interfering with the electoral right of Mr Chautala.
Justice Chalapati further stated that it could not be disputed nor doubted that the Election commissioner Mr Lyngdoh had only passed verbal orders directing the Chief Minister to return to headquarters. "This is very unfortunate situation.....The action of Mr Lyngdoh giving oral instructions deserves condemnation and is to be deprecated. The Election Commission is not supposed to act as a super authority. It has to function within the limits of law. No one in the country, however big they may be, can be above law," he said.
Passing a severe strictures against Mr Lyngdoh, Justice Chalapati commented: "Nobody can find fault if anyone who thinks that Mr Lyngdoh acted as if he is the supreme authority and can issue any orders verbal or written. Law does not authorise any authority, how ever high it may be, to pass verbal orders."
Justice Chalapati also observed that there was no doubt that the offence committed by Election Commissioner Lyngdoh was punishable under Section 171-F. However, this being a non- cognisable offence, there cannot be any direction to register an FIR against Mr Lyngdoh for the offence. "I cannot give any direction to prosecute Mr Lyngdoh though I am satisfied that his action is not warranted under law and it is also in violation of the electoral right of the Chief Minister," he said.
"In all fairness the Election Commissioner should have stated the reasons which prompted him to issue such a directive directing Mr Chautala to leave the Bhiwani constituency and from exercising his franchise," he added.
Justice Chalapati also expressed hope that the Chief Election Commissioner would take necessary action to prevent such misuse or abuse of the powers of the Election Commission by issuing necessary guidelines in consultations with other Commissioners.
In his affidavit, Mr Chautala said that former Chief Minister Bansi Lal had not only stayed in Bhiwani during the February 1998 elections but also moved around different parts of the city in his cavalcade and he was never restrained in any manner by the Election Commission.
"Even this time, he was physically
present in Bhiwani town and went around claiming that he had managed to
send me out of the State through the Election Commission. He even claimed
that he would get a repoll organised in the constituency. It was most unfortunate
that the Election Commission allowed its fair name to be misutilised by
him for his partisan needs," Mr Chautala said.