Periodic, free and fair elections, a basic structure of the Constitution

Aaron Keishing
It would not be proper for the State Govt. to postpone the ADC election unless there are compelling and substantial reasons for postponing the election in question. There is no compulsion by administrative difficulties and thus the proviso to Section 13(1) cannot be invoked by the Administrator or State Government. The action and inaction of the State Government violate the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, 1971. As reflected in Mr. CK Rama Murthy vs State Election Commission (2002) 8 SCC 237, “a democratic form of Government would survive only if there are elected representatives to rule. Any decision to postpone elections on unreasonable grounds is anathema to a democratic form of Govt. and it is subject to judicial review on traditionally accepted grounds. It is the duty of the State Election Commission to see that election is done in a free and fair manner to keep democratic form of Government vibrant and active."
The Hon’ble High Court may exercise its powers under Article 226 against the legislature when it exercises power not possessed by it under the Constitution or in contration of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution or mandatory provisions of the Manipur (Hill Areas)  District  Councils Act, 1971. Accordingly, the High Court of Manipur was pleased to passed an interim order dated 17-12-2020 thereby the impugned order dated 30-11-2020 of supersession  issued by Addl. Chief Secretary (TA&Hills), Govt. of Manipur was suspended and set aside with sharp observations stating that “the State Govt. issued the impugned order in total disregard and disobedience of the Court’s order dated 27-11-2020.” It was observed that “once an order has been passed by the Court, it will have to be honoured and complied with if no appeal is preferred against it.” And the term of ADCs were extended by the Court till further orders, however, the State Government is reluctant to issue notification for elections and also the terms of ADCs were not extended which is highly irresponsible. It was observed in final order of the case that “the impugned order was issued superseding the District Councils which is contrary to the interim order dated 27.11.2020. The impugned order has violated the interim order, is bad in law and it being unsustainable, is liable to be quashed and set aside.” Further, the order dated 02-03-2021 in W.P.(C) Nos. 613, 645, and 647 of 2020 filed by Mr. Lunthang Haokip and Mr Yaronso Ngalung, Chairman, Ukhrul ADC against the State respondents reads as “The State Govt. and in particular, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA&Hills), Govt. of Manipur shall write a letter to the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) within a week from receipt of the order dated 02-03-2021 seeking its opinion as to whether the term of the Councils shall be extended or not till the actual completion of the election, and the HAC shall furnish its opinion within a week from receipt of the letter. Thereafter, the State Govt. shall take a decision and issue an appropriate order immediately in terms thereof. Till such an order is issued, the interim order dated 27-11-2020 shall continue (i.e. the incumbent members of ADCs are still members). The State Election Commission is directed to announce the date on which the election shall be held within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”     
The State Govt. has to conduct election to ADCs by initiating steps at the earliest. The period of five years has to be reckoned from the  date  of  the  notification  of  his  election  or nomination or from the date on which the vacancy in which he is elected or nominated has occurred, whichever date is later as mandated under section 13(1) of the ADC Act, 1971. Keeping the ADCs in supersession mode which could have been avoided and that too without any stipulated time period is unconstitutional to say the least. The last election to ADCs was held on 01.06.2015 and the term of the Councils was for a period of five years which came to an end in May 2020. However, the State Govt. did not issue notification to hold election till date.
The State Govt. would have to hold elections and discharge its Constitutional obligations and as stipulated in section 13(1) of the Act. However, there have been no steps initiated in that direction, instead the State Govt. has put the ADCs in superssession mode since 30-11-2020 and there is an apprehension that it may keep for longer period. The term of the Councils  has expired and that the State Govt. is seen to have adopted dilatory tactics to postpone holding of election to ADCs. The State Govt. shall  issue notifications for elections at the earliest possible date as per the intention of the Act, failing which the primary spirit of the local bodies will be defeated and left redundant.  
It is pertinent to mention here the Constitutional provisions regarding duration of Municipalities, etc. enshrined under Article 243U(3)(a) in the Constitution of India 1949 for better examination of Constitutional intention in the matter, “(3) An election to Constitute a Municipality shall be complete:- (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause ( 1)”
The State Govt. and State Elecction Commission (SEC) have not been making sincere efforts to ensure holding election in time, hence efforts of the ADC members, intending candidates and tribal organisations in that direction have been futile, as the State Government is reluctant to take any positive step in the matter. That the Commission is a Constitutional authority under Article 243K of the Constitution and superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the list of voters and conduct of elections to the ADCs is vested in the Commission. But unless the said exercise is carried out by the State Govt., the Commission would not be in a position either to declare or to conduct election to ADCs. Hence, the State Govt. shall take necessary steps to ensure that election is held in time which has already been in inordinately delayed stage.
Article 243K comes under Part IX of the Constitution and this Article is applicable to all the local self-governments.  That, as observed in M/S Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors, Appeal (civil) Case No.  3340 of 2007 made on 30 July, 2007, Part IX of the Constitution read with the relevant provisions of the Act leaves no room for doubt that a State Legislature in the light of of the constitutional provisions in Part IX, cannot do away with this democratic bodies at the local level nor can their normal tenure be curtailed otherwise than in accordance with law nor can the State Govt. delay elections of this bodies.
The dilatory tactics of the State Govt. would destroy the constitutional set up in Part IX. It would also make 13(1) of the Manipur  (Hill  Areas)  District  Councils Act, 197 totally unworkable, otiose and redundant. The language used in Section 13(1) clearly stipulated that the term of office of ADC members is 5 years which is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. The proviso to this section is purely for the administrative convenience and not for dilatory tactics. It is, therefore, the decision of the State Govt. shall be revoked at the earliest by upholding the validity of Section 13(1) and comply with the said section and to act in accordance with the constitutional intention in the matter. The relevant provisions shall be interpreted keeping in view the intention of the Legislature in respect of local governance and avoid the dilatory tactics which is unlawful or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act.
As quoted in M/S Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors, a question similar to one in hand of interpretation of provisions of the Constitution in Part IX-A concerning Municipalities came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 352 : JT 2006 (9) SC 320.

(To be contd)